- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20259 WP No. 11348 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.11348 OF 2026 (GM-FOR) BETWEEN: MS.MINAL KURVA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.31, VENKATAREDDY LAYOUT, 6TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560095 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.PRATEEK RATH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ENVIRONMENT AND ECOLOGY M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU -560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS HASSAN CIRCLE, ARANYA BHAVAN, B.M. ROAD, HASSAN-573201 3. ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS SAKALESHPURA SUB-DIVISION SAKALESHPURA, HASSAN -573134 Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20259 WP No. 11348 of 2026 4. RANGE FOREST OFFICER SAKALESHPURA RANGE, SAKALESHPURA, HASSAN - 573134 5. FOREST SETTLEMENT OFFICER HASSAN CIRCLE, HASSAN, B.M. ROAD, HASSAN-573201 6. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, HASSAN DISTRICT DC OFFICE, B.M. ROAD, HASSAN 573201 7. TAHSILDAR, SAKALESHPURA TALUK TALUK OFFICE, SAKALESHPURA-573134 8. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-56001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO MEANINGFULLY CONSIDER AND ACT ON TO THE REPRESENTATIONS DATED 22.09.2025 PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER, WHICH IS PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE - A , WITHIN A PERIOD OF 4 WEEKS AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The petitioner in the captioned petition is seeking direction against respondent Nos.2 to 5 Officials to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20259 WP No. 11348 of 2026 consider her representation and address her grievances regarding denial of access to the main road due to trench dug by the Forest Officials. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing the petitioner and learned AGA appearing for the respondent's state. 3. The petitioner asserts that she is the absolute owner in lawful possession and enjoyment of immovable property bearing Sy.No.71/1 and Sy.No.71/2 situated at Kadumane Village, Hanubal Hobli, Sakaleshpura Taluk, Hassan District. In substantiation of her claim, she places reliance on a registered sale deed dated 28.12.2020 executed by the erstwhile owner, pursuant to which she claims to have derived valid title. The petitioner further traces the origin of title to a historical Notification issued during the regime of the then Maharaja of Mysore, commonly referred to as the “1920 acquisition Notification,” and contends that the schedule appended to the said Notification encompasses the subject survey numbers. On the strength of these foundational - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20259 WP No. 11348 of 2026 documents, the petitioner asserts a clear, lawful, and uninterrupted right over the subject property. 4. The petitioner further contends that the aforesaid acquisition Notification of 1920 was subsequently withdrawn by a subsequent Notification issued in the year 1924. Placing heavy reliance on the said withdrawal Notification, it is urged that the subject property ceased to be part of any acquisition proceedings and, therefore, could not be treated as Government or forest land. However, in stark contradiction to the said position, respondent No.5 has issued a proclamation notice, and the official respondents have proceeded to assert that the subject land falls within a notified forest area. Acting on such premise, the respondents have not only disputed the petitioner’s title but have also allegedly obstructed her access to the property, thereby seriously impairing her possessory and proprietary rights. Aggrieved by such action, the petitioner is stated to have submitted detailed representations to the official respondents, enclosing all - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20259 WP No. 11348 of 2026 relevant documents including the Notifications and title deeds, seeking redressal of her grievance. 5. It is the specific grievance of the petitioner that despite submission of repeated representations and production of relevant records, the respondent-authorities have failed to consider the same in accordance with law and have not passed any reasoned order. This inaction, according to the petitioner, has resulted in continued uncertainty over her title and unlawful interference with her possession. 6. Per-contra, learned Additional Government Advocate, on instructions, fairly submits that the representations submitted by the petitioner would be duly examined by the competent authority in accordance with law and appropriate orders would be passed within a reasonable time frame. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20259 WP No. 11348 of 2026 Advocate for the respondents, and upon perusal of the material placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that the controversy involved requires examination at the hands of the competent authority, particularly in the light of the rival claims founded on title documents ,historical Notifications and the assertion of the respondents that the land forms part of a forest area. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions, this Court deems it appropriate to direct consideration of the petitioner’s representations in a time- bound manner. ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed in part. (ii) Respondent Nos.2 to 5 are hereby directed to consider and examine the representations submitted by the petitioner, along with all supporting documents, strictly in accordance with law. (iii) In the event respondent Nos.2 to 5 are of the opinion that any other authority/Officer is the competent authority - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20259 WP No. 11348 of 2026 to adjudicate upon the petitioner’s claim, they shall forthwith transmit/relegate the representations to such competent authority, without causing any delay. (iv) The competent authority shall, upon receipt of the representations, afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, examine the historical Notifications, title documents, and all relevant records, and thereafter pass a reasoned and speaking order. (v) The entire exercise shall be completed within an outer limit of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (vi) Till such consideration, the respondents shall not precipitate the matter so as to cause irreparable prejudice to the petitioner’s claim, subject to the outcome of the decision to be taken by the competent authority. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19