1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION No.16732 OF 2023 (GM-FOR) BETWEEN: SMT. R.H. USHA W/O LATE HANUMANTH RAO, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, CHAIRPERSON, SRI VANI EDUCATION TRUST, A TRUST REGISTERED UNDER THE INDIAN TRUST ACT AND HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE ADDRESS AT HANUMAVANA, MACHOHALLI, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BANGALORE-560 091. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. UDAY HOLLA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. AJITH A. SHETTY., ADVOCATE) AND: 1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, BANGALORE(TERRITORIAL)CIRCLE, SANKEY TANK, CHOWDAIAH ROAD, NATIONAL HIGHWAY 4, KODANDARAMPURA, MALLESHWARA, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560 012. 2 . ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS AND DESIGNATED OFFICER Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA 2 BANGALORE NORTH SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE, 1 PUBLIC UTILITY BUILDING, 17TH FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. 3 . RANGE FOREST OFFICER BANGALORE RANGE, BANGALORE, RG25, 2V3, BANNERUGATTA, KAGGALIPURA ROAD, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560 082. 4 . DEPUTY RANGE FOREST OFFICER NELAMANGALA RANGE, BANGALORE RURAL, 39VV+H2G, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-562 123. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KIRAN V. RON, AAG FOR SRI. R.A. MACHAKANNUR, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30TH JUNE, 2023 PASSED BY THE R1 AUTHORITY, IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN UNDER SECTION 64-A(3) OF THE KARNATAKA FOREST ACT, 1963 (ACT FOR BREVITY) VIDE APPEAL NO. 361 OF 2022- 23 AS PER ANNEXURE-A; ii) SETTING SIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17TH OCTOBER 2022, PASSED BY THE R2 AUTHORITY IN PROCEEDING BEARING REFERENCE No. ¸ÀD¸ÀA/¨ÉAGG«/D¥ÀæzÉñÀ/MvÀÄÛªÀj/512/2022-23, UNDER SECTION 64(A) OF THE KARNATAKA FOREST ACT, 1963 AS REGARDS LAND BEARING SURVEY NUMBER 143, TO AN EXTENT OF 4 ACRES 20 GUNTAS, OF MACHOHALLI VILLAGE, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK AS PER ANNEXURE-B. 3 THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 11.03.2026 FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THIS COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL CAV ORDER This writ petition is filed seeking following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ of certiorari thereby setting aside the impugned order dated 30.06.2023 passed by the first respondent authority in the appeal filed by the petitioner herein under Section 64A(3) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (Act for brevity) vide Appeal No.361/2022-23 as per Annexure-A. (ii) Issue a writ of certiorari, thereby setting aside the impugned order dated 17.10.2022 passed by respondent No.2- authority in proceeding bearing reference No. ¸ÀD¸ÀA/¨ÉAGG«/D¥ÀæzÉñÀ/MvÀÄÛªÀj/512/2022-23, under Section 64A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, as regards land bearing Sy.No.143, to an extent of 4 acres 20 guntas of Machohalli Village, Bengaluru North Taluk, as per Annexure-B, and (iii) grant such other relief/s as would be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court to be granted under the facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice and equity. 2. Brief facts of the case are: 2.1 That the land bearing Sy.No.143, measuring 4 acres 20 guntas situated at Machohalli Village, Bangalore North Taluk (hereinafter referred to as `subject land') originally owned by one K.V.Narayanamurthy, he having been granted the same in terms of a Grant Order dated 19.11.1979. The said land was demarcated by the Assistant Director of Land Records vide order bearing 4 No.ADLRDPRA 17/80-81. After the expiry of non- alienation period, the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban, granted permission to alienate the said land by order dated 11.01.1995. 2.2 That on 30.03.1995, one Mrs.Vydehi purchased an extent of 2 acres from K.V.Narayanamurthy from and out of portion of subject land. Thereafter on 23.12.1995, Mr.H.Mahadeva, the father of said Mrs.Vydehi, purchased the balance extent of 2 acres 20 guntas of subject land from said K.V.Narayanamurthy. 2.3 Petitioner purchased the entire extent of 4 acres 20 guntas of subject land from aforesaid Mr.H.Mahadeva and Mrs.Vydehi in terms of two deeds of sale dated 26.09.2000. Name of the petitioner has been mutated in the revenue records. The petitioner thus has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land. Petitioner has leased out subject land to a Trust known and called as "Shri Vani Education Center" which has been established for the purpose of imparting education and to carry on allied activities. 2.4 Things stood thus, respondent No.4 initiated the proceedings against the petitioner in Forest Case No.17 of 2016-17, alleging that the subject land was a part of "Reserve Forest Area" and that the petitioner had violated the provisions of Sections 24(g), 24(gg), 24(h), 5 73, 78, 82(b), 104 and 104(c) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. Consequently, Respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order dated 17.10.2022 holding that the subject land formed part of the notified forest and that the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of the same, and has consequently called upon the petitioner to remove the encroachment. 2.5 That the appeal filed by the petitioner, before the respondent No.1 -appellate authority, has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 30.06.2023 confirming the order passed by the respondent No.2. 2.6 That in view of observation made by respondent No.2-authority at page 3 of the impugned order regarding non-availability of the original map of Machohalli plantation, it was not possible for him to ascertain whether or not the landmass measuring 139 acres and 12 guntas had been vested with the Forest Department. As such, the determination of the subject land held by the petitioner to be a `forest land' as made by the respondent No.2-authority is illegal, arbitrary and unlawful. 2.7 That even according to respondent No.2, several individuals and organizations had been granted various portions of forest land and there is no mention of any 6 action having been initiated against said individuals and organizations. 2.8 That this Court in its order passed in W.P.No.7200/2008 has already declared that the Notifications dated 29.05.1896 and 07.01.1901 are invalid. The said order was questioned by the Forest Department in Writ Appeal No.4283/2012, which was dismissed confirming the order of the learned Single Judge. As such, the proceedings initiated by the respondent authorities with respect to the subject land based on the said notifications are unsustainable. Hence, sought for grant of reliefs. 3. Statement of objections has been filed by the respondent-State contending: 3.1 That the Government of Mysore had declared 58 plantations in the then Bengaluru, Kolar and Tumakuru Districts vide Notification dated 29.05.1896 under the provisions of Rule 9 of `Rules for the Administration of the Forests, Wastelands in the Territories of His Highness the Maharaja of Mysore 1878, as "State Forests" under Rule 1 of the said Rules. That at Sl.No.38 of the said Notification an area of 270 acres of land in two blocks of Machohalli and Machohalli-A Village of the then Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru District, had been declared as "State Forests." 7 3.2 That the Mysore Forest Regulation (XI of 1900) came into force with effect from 01.01.1901. In terms of Section 23 of the said Regulation, the aforesaid notified forests were declared as "State Forests", vide a Notification dated 07.01.1901. 3.3 Subsequently, by Notification dated 16.10.1933 an extent of 223 acres and 18 guntas in Machohalli-A was denotified. However, the said Notification had expressly clarified that the remaining extent of 145 acres and 12 guntas of land in Machohalli, corresponding to Sy.No.81 as per re-survey figures, shall continue to remain classified and recorded as forest land. Thus, the subject land forms part of the Machohalli Forest. 3.4 The Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 came into force with effect from 01.06.1969. As per Section 23 of the said Act any forest which had been notified as a State Forest under the Mysore Forest Regulation, 1900 prior to the date on which the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 came into force, shall be a Reserved Forest under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. Thus, an area of 145 acres 12 guntas in old Sy.No.81 in Machohalli Village notified as "Machohalli State Forest" under the Mysore Forest Regulation (XI of 1900) had become "Machohalli Reserved Forest" under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. 8 3.5 The subject land claimed by the petitioner is carved out of Sy.No.81 new Sy.No.143 of Machohalli Village, is "State Forest" in accordance with Chapter XI, Section 23 of the erstwhile Mysore Forest Regulations, 1900 and the same has not been de-notified. 3.6 That from the date of issuance of Notifications dated 29.05.1896 and 07.01.1901, the subject land stood vested as "State Forest" and at no point thereafter did it belong to or fall under the administrative control of the Revenue Department. Since, admittedly, no denotification has been issued, the legal character of the land remained as "Forest Land", as held in "T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs Union of India" (1997)2 SCC 267. 3.7 That no revenue authority possessed any jurisdiction to alienate, regularize, or grant the land for non-forest use unless prior approval of the Central Government under Section 2 of VAN (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adiniyam 1980 (VSES) previously Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 was obtained. No non-forest activity can be permitted on forest land without such prior approval. 3.8 That no approval has been obtained, rendering the alleged grant and alienation illegal and void. That once land is notified as "Reserved Forest", any entry in the revenue records, including through grants made by 9 revenue authorities, would not confer any title upon the grantees. The revenue authorities lack jurisdiction and competence to deal with lands declared as "Reserved Forest". 3.9 Existence of building over the subject land is of no relevance, as the same would not change the character of the forest land. That earlier notifications dated 29.05.1896 and 17.01.1901 were never under challenge in W.P.No. 7200/2008. The writ petition was with regard to the show cause notices issued under Section 64A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. The aforesaid notifications have not been set aside, and no notification de-reserving the forest land has been issued. The operative portion of the order in the said writ petition is confined strictly to a particular parcel of land in Kadugodi Plantation and cannot be construed as laying down any general declaration regarding the legal character of all lands covered under the notifications dated 29.05.1896 and 07.01.1901. 3.10 Dismissal of the writ appeal in W.A.Nos.4283/2012 and 8577-78/2012 has no relevance for determining the claim of the petitioner in the instant case. 3.11 That the Assistant Conservator of Forest, Bengaluru has complied with the prescribed procedure and has comprehensively examined all relevant records before 10 passing the order dated 17.10.2022. The authorities have also verified the ground realities by relying upon the joint survey conducted in terms of the Government Order dated 26.10.2015 which clearly established portions of notified forest land that have been encroached. 3.12 The petitioner is at liberty to point out that the land being claimed by her falls outside the boundaries of Machohalli Forest land. The joint survey was conducted in the Bangalore Urban District in terms of the Government Order dated 26.10.2015 which had constituted a High Level Committee headed by the Chief Secretary, Officials from the Forest Department, the Revenue Department, BBMP, BDA, SSLR and the Deputy Commissioners of Bangalore Urban and Rural. Pursuant to the directions of the said Committee, a sub-Committee comprising of Regional Commissioner, Bengaluru, APPCF (Working Plan); CCF Bangalore Circle and Joint Director, Land Records, Bengaluru was constituted to survey forest lands in the Bangalore Urban District and identify the extent of encroachment and the entities who have encroached. Thus, the joint survey map was prepared under the supervision of competent technical authorities and Multi- departmental process. Same cannot be questioned by the petitioner. 3.13 The grounds urged by the petitioners are a repetition of the grounds raised in Appeal No.361/2022 -23 before 11 the Chief Conservator of Forests, which have already been dealt with by giving findings thereon. Petitioner cannot reagitate the same in this writ petition. 3.14 The petitioner had already filed writ petition in W.P.No.21791/2022 on the same cause of action and has approached this Court once again with ulterior intentions. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition. Additional statement of objections: 3.15 The petitioner has heavily relied upon the order dated 25.05.2012 passed in Writ Petition No.7200/2008 connected with Writ Petition No.29765–766/2009, which is confirmed by the order dated 23.07.2019 passed in Writ Appeal No.4283/2012. In the said writ petition, while adverting to the notification dated 29.05.1896, it was observed that Rule 1 read with Rule 9 of the Forest Rules 1878 empowers the Chief Commissioner to issue such notification, and since the notification dated 29.05.1896 had not been issued by a Chief Commissioner, who alone had the mandate to notify under Rule 9 the land subject matter of the said writ petition was not a State Forest. 3.16 That an important aspect of the matter was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge in the earlier round of litigation in W.P.No.7200/2008. 12 3.17 That the then British Government had taken over the administration of the Maharaja of Mysore in the year 1831. Said power was restored on 25.03.1881. That a notification dated 25.03.1881 in this regard was published evidencing the vesting of power with His Highness Chamarajendra Wodayar Bahadur. That the said notification also discloses that the office of the Chief Commissioner of Mysore ceased to exist upon the event of the Maharaja of Mysore assuming charge of the territories of Mysore. A proclamation dated 02.04.1881 had been issued in this regard, clearly disclosing that His Highness Maharaja Chamarajendra Wodayar Bahadur assumed the charge of the Government of the Territories of Mysore on 25.03.1881. 3.18 That the aforesaid two documents were not brought to the notice of this Court in the earlier round of litigation which led to the finding that the notification dated 29.05.1896 issued under the provisions of Rule 9 of Rule 1 of the Forest Rules, 1878 being issued by the State of Mysore and not by the Chief Commissioner, and therefore was invalid. If these documents were taken into consideration, it would be obvious that the office of the Chief Commissioner of Mysore ceased to exist with effect from 25.03.1881 and consequently the notification dated 29.05.1896 issued by the State of Mysore would be valid, and that no provision of the Mysore Forest Rules, 1878 was violated. That, in light of these two documents, the 13 petitioner cannot place reliance on the order passed in W.P.No.7200/2008 which is confirmed in Writ Appeal No. 4283/2012. 3.19 That respondent Department has maintained survey maps of a few of the Plantations mentioned in the Notification dated 29.05.1896, such as Jarakabande B Plantation at serial No. 32, Kallupalya Plantation at Serial No. 39, Bellavi Plantation at serial No. 6, Dodharadi Plantation at serial No. 41. 3.20 That pursuant to the enactment of the Mysore Forest Regulation, 1900, by virtue of Section 23 of the said Act, plantations which were treated as state forest stand protected under the Mysore Forest Regulation of 1900. A notification to the said effect has also been issued. That nearly 240 blocks of state forests in different parts of the state have been issued under the provisions of Rule 9 of Rule 1 of the Forest Rules 1878. The Forest Department is in possession of the entire land except a few, which have been encroached upon or illegally granted by the Revenue Department. Efforts are being made to reclaim such forest land and proceedings are pending in this regard. 3.21 The earlier order of this Court in W.P.No.7200/2008 pertains to the Kadugodi plantation. That out of total extent of 711 acres, an extent of 449-17 acres and guntas of land was acquired by KIADB for industrial 14 purposes. The remaining land measuring 231-26 acres and guntas is with the custody of the Forest Department. Utilization of land by Bangalore Metro Corridor, BWSSB was with prior sanction by the Ministry of Environment and Forest and Climate Change. 3.22 That since Machohalli A was also one of the plantations at serial No. 38 of the notification dated 29.05.1896 the said land was de-reserved by a Gazette notification dated 16.10.1933 under the provisions of Section 30 of the Mysore Forest Regulation,1900. That in order to apply Section 30 of the Mysore Forest Regulation for de-reservation, it is clear that Machohalli A was considered as the State Forest declared under the notification dated 29.05.1896, as such, the stand of the petitioner that the authorities do not have power to remove the encroachment under the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 cannot be accepted. REJOINDER BY THE PETITIONER: 4. Rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner to the additional statement of objections of the state, contending: 4.1 That the Respondent State has failed to note the observations made in the order passed in W.P.No.7200/2008, at paragraphs 65, 66, 67, 68 and 71 wherein the lands were only categorized as “Plantations” 15 and not as “State Forests”. Therefore, the observations made in the said paragraphs indicate that the land in question was never declared as “State Forests” prior to the date of the notification under the Mysore Forest Regulation, 1900. As such, if at all these lands were to be considered “State Forests” Government ought to have issued a notification under Regulations 3 and 4 and admittedly no notification under Regulation 4 had ever been issued by the then Mysore Government. 4.2 Even the notification dated 16.10.1933 categorizes the land as “Plantation” and not as “State Forests” and the land in the occupation of the petitioner was never notified as “forest land.” 4.3 The State cannot insist on ignoring the dictum of the order passed in W.P.No.7200/2008, Writ Appeal No.4283/2012 and the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Petition (Civil) diary No.10430/2020. SUBMISSIONS: 5. Sri Uday Holla, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, extensively referring to paragraphs 66 to 71 of the order dated 25.05.2012 passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No. 7200/2008 submitted that the land, subject matter of the present 16 writ petition was also the subject matter of the notification dated 29.05.1896 and the said notification refers to the declaration of lands listed therein as “Government Plantations” and not “State forests”. That subject land therefore has not been notified as a “State Forest”. 5.1 That the Co-ordinate Bench has already adjudicated upon the validity or otherwise of the notification dated 29.05.1896 holding the same to be non-rule compliant, which order has been confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court, as well as by the Apex Court, the said issue has therefore attained finality. The subject land forming part of the very same notification cannot therefore be distinguished, and settled issues cannot be reopened. 5.2 The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has not only held the notification dated 29.05.1896 to be ineffective for the same not having been issued by the Chief Commissioner, but has also independently considered the requirement of law to declare the land to be a "State Forest". The subject land has always been considered as “Government 17 Plantation” same cannot be equated to mean “State Forest”. 5.3 The application filed by the petitioner seeking permission for diversion of use of land was in respect of 18 guntas of land in Sy.No. 81 which is not part of the subject land. Even in the RTC records, the subject land is shown as the “Government Plantation”. 5.4 He relies upon the following judgments in support of his case: (1) Changanlal Keshavlal Mehta Vs. Patel Narandas Haribhai (1982)1 SCC 223 (2) Union of India Vs City Municipal Council Bally bracket 1979 2SCC1 (3) BL Sridar and others versus K. M Munni Reddy (2003) 2SCC355 (4) Rohan, Vijay, Nahar and others Vs state of maharaja Maharashtra and others (2026) 2 SCC 182 6. Per contra, Sri Kiran V. Ron, learned Additional Advocate General submitted: 6.1 That when the petitioner herself has made an application seeking permission to divert the use of forest land, as required under the provisions of the 18 Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, she cannot contend to the contrary. 6.2 That the erstwhile State of Mysore was under the administration of the British Government between the years 1831 and 1881 and the administration was handed over to His Highness the Maharaja of Mysore under an instrument, effective from which the office of Chief Commissioner of Mysore ceased to exist. A notification dated 25.03.1881 as well as the Proclamation dated 02.04.1881 in this regard have been issued. 6.3 That the aforesaid notification dated 25.03.1881 clarifies the non-existence of the office of Chief Commissioner of Mysore. Said Notification dated 25.03.1881 as well as the Proclamation dated 02.04.1881 which provides for the authority of the Maharaja of Mysore to issue notification, were not placed before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. That in the light of the notification dated 25.03.1881 the 19 Co-ordinate Bench of this Court could not have come to the conclusion as found at paragraph 68. 6.4 Even otherwise, the earlier orders of this Court passed in W.P.7200/2008 would not bind the facts of the present case, inasmuch as the blocks involved in both the petitions are different and distinct. 6.5 In terms of Rule 1 of the Rules for Administration of Forests and Waste Lands in the Territories of His Highness Maha Raja of Mysore, 1878, "State Forests" mean and include "Plantation". Therefore, the specific term "Plantation" in the notification would not make any difference. The documents maintained by the Forest Department consistently reveal that the subject land is forest land. 6.6 The documents maintained by the Forest Department in respect of similar plantations classifying them as forest land, will also have to be considered. 6.7 He relies upon the following judgments in support of his contentions: 20 1. Prestige Lights Ltd. vs. State Bank of India, reported in (2007) 8 SCC 449. 2. Joint Action Committee of Air Line Pilots' Association of India (ALPAI) & Ors. vs. Director General of Civil Aviation & Ors., reported in (2011) 5 SCC 435. 3. Narayan S. Kurdekar Vs. Dawal Sab, since deceased by LR's and others reported in ILR 2017 Kar 3505. 4. Narinder Singh and others vs. Divesh Bhutani, and others reported in (2023) 17 SCC 779. 5. Ajay Krishan Shinghal and Ors v. Union of India & Ors, reported in (1996) 10 SCC 721 6. I.T.C. Bhadrachalam Paperboards & Anr. v. Mandal Revenue Officer, A.P. & Ors., reported in (1996) 6 SCC 634 7. State of Karnataka and Ors v. I. S. Nirvane Gowda, reported in (2007) 15 SCC 744. 8. Girish Achaar v. Government of India & Ors., in W.P. No. 43037/201, DD dated 04.03.2021. 9. Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel, reported in (2010) 4 SCC 393. 10. Union of India and Anr. v. Kirloskar Pneumatic Co. Ltd., reported in (1996) 4 SCC 453. 7. Heard and perused the records. 8. Annexure-B is the order dated 17.10.2022 passed by Respondent No. 2- Assistant Conservator of Forest and designated officer under Section 64A of the Karnataka Forest Act 1963, wherein, observing inter alia: 21 • that in terms of the Gazette Notification dated 29.05.1896, the then Princely State of Mysore had declared an area of 145 acres, 12 guntas of Machohalli, and 270 acres of Machohalli-A villages as "plantations" or "Neduthopu"; • that in terms of the subsequent Gazette Notification dated 07.01.1901, these plantations had been re- categorized as "State Forests" in terms of Section 23 Chapter XI, of the erstwhile Mysore Forest Regulation, 1900; • that although a de-notification was ordered by the subsequent Gazette Notification dated 16.10.1933, issued in terms of Section 30 of the erstwhile Mysore Forest Regulations, 1900, it had been made clear that the same was not to affect the plantation lands lying to the north of the Bangalore-Magadi Road; • that the grant order dated 19.11.1979 made in favour of the original grantee was illegal; has proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 17.10.2022 directing the petitioner to remove the alleged encroachment from the subject land. 9. 9. In the appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order, the respondent No. 1 -Appellate Authority has framed the following points for its consideration: "(i) Was the land in Sy.No.81 (New Sy.No.143) of Machohalli declared as forest land? (ii) Whether the appellant encroached upon the forest land in Sy.No.81 (new Sy.No.143) of Machohalli as claimed by the respondent? 22 (iii) Whether the order dated 17.10.2022 passed by the Assistant Conservator of Forest under Section 64-A(1) requires interference by this appellate Authority? (iv) Whether the grounds urged in the appeal requires interference with the facts of the case? (v) What order?" 10. Upon consideration of the matter, respondent No.1 has answered point Nos. 1 and 2 in the affirmative and points Nos.3 and 4 in the negative, and consequently dismissed the appeal by order dated 30.06.2023 as per Annexure-A primarily on the premise of Sy.No. 81 (new Sy.No. 143) of Machohalli land, as having been declared as forest land in terms of notifications dated 29.05.1986, 07.01.1901 and 16.10.1933. The respondent No.1 has declined to accept the contention of the petitioner regarding the relevancy of order dated 25.05.2012 passed in W.P.No.7200/2008 in which the said notifications have been held to be invalid by this Court and has proceeded to hold that the grant of subject land made in favour of K.V.Narayanamurthy, the predecessor 23 in title of the petitioner, by the Department of Revenue, was invalid and without authority. 11. On consideration of the aforesaid facts, documents, and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the following points arise for consideration in this writ petition: "(i) Whether the respondents 1 and 2 are justified in passing the impugned order holding the subject land to be forest land in the light of the order dated 25.05.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 7200/2008 declaring the Notifications dated 29.05.1896 and 07.01.1901 as invalid, which is confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.07.2019 passed in Writ Appeal No. 4283/2012? (ii) Whether the production of the notification dated 25.03.1881 and the proclamation dated 02.04.1881 would have resulted in upholding the notifications dated 29.05.1896 and 07.01.1901? Analysis and Discussion: 12. By notification dated 29.05.1896 issued under Rule 9 of the Forest Rules, 1878 the then Government of Mysore had declared 58 demarcated and settled plantations in Bangalore, Kolar, and Tumkuru Districts as “Government Plantations” under Rule 1 of the said Forest Rules, which included plantations covering an area of 145 acres 12 24 guntas of Machohalli and 270 acres of Machohalli ‘A’ villages. 13. By subsequent notification dated 07.01.1901 the blocks which were notified as “plantations” had been re- categorized as “State Forests” in terms of Section 23 of the then Mysore Forest Regulation No. XI of 1900. 14. By another notification dated 16.10.1933 issued in terms of Section 30 of the Mysore Forest Regulation, 1900 certain lands including lands in Machohalli block were de-notified. However, it was clarified that the said de-notification would not affect the boundaries of the Machohalli Plantation Block lying on the north side of the Bangalore-Magadi Road. 15. Consequent upon the promulgation of Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, which repealed the Mysore Forest Regulation, 1900, respondent authorities initiated the proceedings under Section 64A of the said Act, 25 considering the subject land to be a “declared State Forest”. 16. Respondent No. 1 in the impugned order while answering point No. 1, in the affirmative as noted above, has referred to and relied upon the aforesaid notifications dated 29.05.1896 and 07.01.1901. It has however declined to accept the reliance placed on by the petitioner on the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.7200/2008 which invalidated the said notifications. Relevant portion of the impugned order of respondent No. 1 in this regard is as under: "11. Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.7200/2008 was not dealing with the entire notification, it was in dealing with land in Sy.No.1 of Kadugodi Plantation measuring 711 acres. This had been classified as `kharab', in various Survey records, even though reference was made to a tree plantation in a portion of the land. This was the only reason why this land was found to be not reserved vide the Gazette Notifications. The Karnataka High Court did not consider or comment upon the validity of these Gazette Notifications. In any case, the High Court of Karnataka did not deal with the land in question or the notification in connection with the land in question. 12. Therefore the Appellant can't take any shelter from the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka….." 26 17. There is no dispute that the aforesaid notification dated 29.05.1896 as well as the notification dated 07.01.1901 were subject matter of the writ petition in W.P.No.7200/2008. The issue in the said writ petition was primarily concerned with respect to the nature of the land bearing Sy.No. 1 of the Kadugodi plantation shown at serial No. 28 of the notification dated 29.05.1896. 18. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while dealing with point No.1 framed in earlier W.P.No.7200/2008, namely, "Whether Sy.No.1 Kadugodi “ Classed” as Government plantation is a deemed reserve forest under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963?, has also incidentally adverted to the validity or otherwise of the aforesaid notifications and, at paragraphs 60 to 71 has held as under: 60. "Forest Rules of 1878" are rules for the administration of forests and waste land in the territory of his Highness the Maharaja of Mysore. Rule 1 under Chapter I reads thus: "1. In these rules the expression 'State forests' means any de-marketed forest or plantation, the property of the State, which has been notified by the Chief Commissioner under Rule 9, to be a State forest." (Emphasis supplied) 27 Rule 2 reads thus: "2. Subject to general control of the Chief Commissioner of Mysore, the administration of the forests is vested as herein provided in, I - The Conservator of Forests and the other forest officers. II - The Deputy Commissioner or other officers in charge of districts, and the subordinate revenue officers". Rule 9 under Chapter II reads thus: "9. Proclamation of the demarcation and boundaries of every State forest shall be publicly made in the Taluk where the forest is situated, and a notification thereof shall be published in the Mysore Gazette." 61. The Government of Mysore published in the Mysore Gazette dt. 11/6/1896 Notification No. 10407 FT.F-153- 95 of 29/5/1896 which reads thus: "Under the provisions of Sec.9 of the Forest Rules of 1878, the Government of Mysore are pleased to declare that the undermentioned demarcated and settled plantations in the Bangalore, Kolar and Tumkur Districts shall be classed as Government plantations under Rule 1 of the aforesaid Forest Rules:- Statement showing area and boundaries of the plantations of the Plantation Department: Taluk No. Names of plantations Area in acres Boundaries 1 to 27 xxxxx North - Bangalore-Madras Railway line from the 14th telegraph post of the 207th mile to 18th post of the 205th mile meeting the 1st furlong of the 1st mile of Kadgudi-Sarjapur road. Bangalore 28 Kadgudi 711 East - Kadgudi-Sarjapur road from the last named point to the 6th furlong of the 1 mile joining the boundary bandhs of Kadgudi. and Jodi Pattandur. 28 South - The trench runs from the above point along the boundary of Jodi Pattandur skirting S. Nos. 65 and 64 of Sadarmangala. West - The trench runs from the above point along S.Nos.60 and 59 of Sadarmangala meeting the starting point. 29 to 58 XXXXXXX (Emphasis supplied) 62. The Forest Rules of 1878, as the nomenclature goes, was for the administration of forest and waste land in the territory of Maharaja of Mysore. Rule 2 vests with the Conservator of Forest and other Forest officers as well as the DC or other officers in charge of districts as well as sub-ordinate officers with the administration of forests in the manner provided therein subject to general control of the Chief Commissioner. A reading of Rule 1 in conjunction with Rule 9 makes it abundantly clear that "State forests" means any demarcated forest or plantation belonging to the State, which is notified by the Chief Commissioner under Rule 9 to be State forest. In other words, there must be in existence a demarcated forest or plantation, the property of the State, which the Chief Commissioner shall notify under rule 9 to be a State forest. The language deployed while engrafting Rule 1 mandates the Chief Commissioner to notify the demarcated plantation or forest, the property of the State to be the State forest, while Rule 9 mandates the issue of a proclamation of demarcation and boundaries of every State forest to be publicly made in the Taluk where the forest is situated by a notification published in Mysore gazette. The emphasis in Rule 1 over the expression "notified by Chief Commissioner under Rule 9 to be a State Forest", therefore assumes importance. 63. A question necessarily arises as to whether a proclamation of demarcation of boundaries of every State forest publicly made in the Taluk where the forest is situated and a notification duly published in the Mysore gazette in compliance with Rule 9 is sufficient to mean that what is notified is a State forest under Rule 1? Sequentially the next question is, whether the expression "to be a State forest" in Rule 1 is superfluous, redundant and of no consequence as asserted by Sri. D. S. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Special Counsel for R1? 29 64. The meaning of "State forests" in Rule 1 if read by excluding the expression "to be a State forest", takes into its fold any demarcated forest or plantation property of the State as notified by the Chief Commissioner under Rule 9 by a proclamation of the demarcation and boundaries of that State forest publicly made in the Taluk where the forest is situated and published in the Mysore gazette. 65. Since the aims and objects of the Forest Rules of 1878 are not forthcoming, the preamble to the notification and the provisions thereunder point to a fact that its promulgation was due to a need to include plantation and forest, properties of the State, within the expression "State forests" which hitherto was not done, since maintained separately. Though making a list of forest and government plantation would bring them within the meaning of the expression "State forests" under Rule 1, nevertheless, the then Government of India, thought fit to engraft Rule 1 and Rule 9, which when read together, apparently makes clear, a mandate to the Chief Commissioner to notify under Rule 9 any demarcated plantation or forest to be a State forest. Rule 9 too contemplates the issue of a proclamation of demarcation of every "State forest to be publicly made in the Taluk where it is situated, by a notification duly published in the Mysore gazette. In other words, the proclamation must be with reference to a State forest which is required to be declared as such publicly by notification duly published. Thus compliance of Rule 1 and Rule 9 is complete only when the proclamation of the demarcation and boundaries of every State forest is made to the knowledge of the public, meaning thereby seeking to notify the public that what was demarcated and notified by the Chief Commissioner was "State forest". 66. Viewed thus, the expression "to be a State forest in Rule 1 requires the Chief Commissioner to notify any demarcated forest or plantation, the property of the State, in compliance with Rule 9 to be a "State forest". The proclamation under Rule 9 must therefore indicate that the demarcated forest or plantation "to be a State forest", leading to the only conclusion that Rule 1 cannot be read in isolation of the expression "to be a State forest" The answers to the two questions supra are in the negative. 30 67. Adverting to the notification dt. 29/5/1896, it is the State government declared, amongst others that the demarcated and settled plantations in Sy.No.1 Kadugodi measuring 711 acres, "shall be classed as government plantation under Rule 1". In other words did not mean that the settled plantation is "to be a State forest" the expression used in Rule 1 and the expression "every State forest" used in Rule 9. 68. That notification apparently was not issued by the Chief Commissioner, a mandate contained in Rule 1. It is also not shown by record that there was due publicity in Bangalore Taluk within whose territorial jurisdiction Kadugodi plantation was situated. Though Sri.D.S.Ramachandra Reddy, learned Special Counsel for the State Forest Department, submits that the notification being more than one hundred years ago and a presumption arises over due compliance of procedure, is unacceptable in view of the entries in the Survey and Revenue records maintained by the then Government of Mysore. The Survey records maintained by the State of the year 1921 Annex.R5, the akarbandh of the year 1938 and 1966 Annex. R6 and R7 respectively, as well as the reclassification Prathibook-Annex.R4 to the affidavit of the Commissioner of survey settlement records that the land measuring 677 acres and 3 guntas in Sy.No.1 Kadugodi is classified as "kharab", though the maps make a reference to a tree plantation in a portion of the land. Therefore the notification dt. 29/5/1896 not being rule compliant, land measuring 711 acres in Sy.No.1 Kadugodi, Bangalore Taluk, does not fall within the expression "State forests" under Rule 1 of the Forest Rules 1878. 69. The "Forest Rules of 1878", stood repealed on the coming into force of the Mysore Forest Regulation, 1900, whereunder Regulation 2(11) "State forest" meant, any land settled and notified as such in accordance with the provisions of Chapter II. Regulation 23 falling under Chapter II states that the Government may by a notification in the official gazette declare that any forest which has been notified as a "State forest" previous to the date on which the regulation comes into force, shall be a State forest. 70. Learned Special Counsel for the 1st respondent submits that though the notification dt. 7/1/1901 is in accordance with Sec.23 of the Mysore Forest Regulations, 1900, nevertheless since the government may constitute 31 a "State forest" under Regulation 3, the notification ought to be read as constituting Kadugodi plantation in Sy.No.1 as a "State forest". Learned Counsel places reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER VS. TULSIRAM PATEL & OTHERS. It is no doubt true that Rule 3 under Chapter II of the Mysore Forest Regulations 1900, invests a power in the State to constitute as a "State forest any land at its disposal, however, in a manner provided in Chapter II. Regulation 4 provides for the publication of a notification in the official gazette whenever it is proposed by the State government to constitute any land as a State forest by specifying as nearly as possible the situation and limits of such land, declaring that it is proposed to constitute such land, a "State forest"; and appointing an officer called the Forest Settlement Officer to inquire into determining the existence, nature and extent of any rights claimed by, or alleged to exist in favour of, any person in or over any land comprised within such limits, or to any forest produce of such lands, and to deal with the same as provided in the Chapter. Regulation 5 provides for proclamation by the Forest Settlement Officer to be published in the official gazette and at the headquarters of each taluka in which any portion of the land comprised in the notification referred to in Regulation 4. Regulation 6 provides for bar of accrual of forest rights while Regulation 7 contemplates an inquiry by the Forest Settlement Officer and Regulation 8 invests power in the Forest Settlement Officer. Regulation 9 provides for extinction of rights while Regulation 10 deals with power to acquire land over which right is claimed. Regulation 11 requires the Forest Officer to pass an order over claims to rights of way or pasture or to forest produce or water. Regulation 13 deals with exercise of admitted rights, while Regulation 14 refers to commutation of rights; and Regulation 15 to appeals from orders passed under Regulations 10, 11, 12, 13 or 14; and Regulation 16 provides for an appeal. Regulation 17 states that if the following events have occurred: (a) the period fixed under Sec.5 for preferring claims as lapsed; (b) if such claims have been made, the period fixed by Sec. 15 for appealing from the orders passed on such claim as lapsed; (c) all proceedings prescribed by Regulation 10 and 13 have been taken place and all lands or buildings included in the proposed "State 32 forest" which the Forest Settlement Officer has under Sec.10 elected to acquire under the Mysore Land Acquisition Regulation 1894, have become vested in the government under Sec. 16 of that Regulation, the government may publish a notification in the official gazette specifying the limits of the forest which it is intended to constitute a "State forest" and declare the same to be a "State forest from a date fixed by such notification subject to exercise of rights, if any, specified at the foot of the said notification and from the dates so fixed, such forest shall be deemed to be a "State forest". Apparently the notification dt. 7/1/1901 issued under Sec.23 of the Mysore Forest Regulations 1900, does not comply with any of the Regulations under Chapter II so as to deem the land in Sy.No.1 of Kadugodi plantation to be a "State forest". This submission of the learned Special Counsel, stands rejected. 71. Regard being had to the opinion that the land in question is not "State forests under the "Forest Rules of 1878", it cannot be gain said that the notification No. 422 FTF 15-1900 dt. 7/1/1901 issued under Regulation 23 declares the said land as a State forest. Sequentially the submission that the said State forest is a deemed reserve forest under Sec.23 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, is unacceptable. In the light of what is stated supra, the further submission of the learned Special Counsel that lands allotted to the petitioners when described as "forest land" in the schedule to the lease deeds executed by the KIADB, the petitioners cannot contend to the contrary, pales into insignificance. Point No.1 is answered accordingly". 19. Thus the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, as seen at paragraphs 65 and 66 has come to definite conclusion that the expression “to be a State Forest” in Rule 1 requires the Chief Commissioner to notify any declared forest or plantation, being the property of the State, in 33 compliance with Rule 9 to be a “State Forest”. It has also concluded that the proclamation under Rule 9 must therefore indicate that the demarcated forest or plantation is to be a “State Forest”. 20. Learned Additional Advocate General referring to the contents of the additional statement of objections and the notification dated 25.03.1881 and the proclamation dated 02.04.1881 contended that, under the orders of the Government of India, His Highness Chamarajendra Wadayar Bahadur was installed as Maharaja of Mysore and the administration of the province was placed at his hands with effect from 25.03.1881 followed by the issuance of the proclamation dated 02.04.1881 indicating the assumption of charge. He further submitted that these documents would make it clear that the office of Chief Commissioner of Mysore ceased to exist with effect from 25.03.1881, as such, the notification dated 29.05.1896 issued by the State of Mysore was valid and was in compliance with the Mysore Forest Rules 1878. That if these two documents were made available, the 34 finding and conclusion arrived at by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court would have been otherwise. 21. Though the aforesaid contentions of the State appear to be acceptable so far as the competency of the State of Mysore to issue the notification dated 29.05.1896 in view of the non-existence of the office of the Chief Commissioner with effect from 25.03.1881, who under Rule 9 of the Rules 1878 was mandated to issue notification, the point that requires further consideration is whether the essentiality of the declaration of the demarcated "plantation area” as “State Forests” has been complied with as required under the Rules 1878? 22. 22. Though this aspect of the matter has also been dealt with by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at paragraphs 65 and 66 of its order, holding that in order to be a "State Forest” , Rule 1 requires the Chief Commissioner to notify any declared forest or plantation, being the property of the State, in compliance with Rule 9 to be a “State Forest”, learned Additional Advocate General has placed 35 heavy reliance on the notifications dated 07.01.1901 and 16.10.1933 to contend that, by the said notifications, the Government of Mysore has indeed notified “Government Plantations” as “ State Forests”. Necessary, therefore, to advert to this contention with reference to the contents of the said notifications. 23. Notification dated 29.05.1896 issued under Rules 1878 states as under: Under the provisions of Rule 9 of the Forest Rules, 1878 the Government of Mysore are pleased to declare that the undermentioned demarcated and settled plantations in the Bangalore, Kolar and Tumkur districts shall be classed as Government Plantation under Rule 1 of the aforesaid Forest Rules. 24. In the notification dated 07.01.1901 the following is stated: In accordance with the provisions of Section 23 of Mysore Forest Regulation No. XI of 1900, the Government of Mysore are pleased to declare that the undermentioned forests and plantations in the Bangalore district, which were notified as State Forests under the “Rules for administration of forest and waste lands in Territories of His Highness, the Maharaja of Mysore” (1878) Shall be State Forest under the Forest Regulations. 36 25. Thus, “plantations” to be “ State Forests” same should have been so notified even under the Regulations 1878. 26. Notification dated 16.10.1933 specifically issued in respect of Machohalli “ A” Block reads as under. "The Government of His Highness, Maharaja of Mysore, are pleased to declare under the provisions of Section 30 of the Mysore Forest Regulation XI of 1900, that the area, specified in the schedule appended, which forms part of Machohalli Plantation, as per Govt. Notification No. 10407-ft.153-95, date 29th May 1896 (re-notified in No. 422-Ft.F.15-1900, dated 7th January 1901) will cease to be portion of plantation from the date of this notification." 27. A clarification is also provided in the aforesaid notification to the effect that the aforesaid disafforestation would not affect the boundaries of the Machohalli plantation block lying on the northern side of the Bangalore - Magadi Road, but only the area thereof, stands at 145 acres 12 guntas as per the re-survey figures. 28. Significant, to note that, even as held by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court, what is declared and notified 37 in the notification dated 29.05.1896, issued under Rules 1878, is the classification of demarcated and settled plantations as “ Government Plantation” and not as “State Forests”. 29. Similarly, what is declared to be “State Forests” in the notification dated 07.01.1901, issued under Section 23 of the Mysore Forest Regulation No.XI of 1900, is the “forests” and “Plantations” in the Bangalore district which ought to have been declared and notified as “ State Forests” under the Rules 1878, which is not the case. 30. The controversy whether Machohalli Plantation had been declared as “State Forests” or “Government Plantation” under the notification dated 29.05.1896 further stands clarified by the Notification dated 16.10.1933 issued under Section 30 of the Mysore Forest Regulation No. XI of 1900, wherein reference is specifically made by using the name Machohalli Plantation, which was declared as "Government Plantation" and notified as per Govt. Notification No. 38 10407-ft.153-95, dated 29th May 1896 and re-notified in No. 422-Ft.F.15-1900, dated 7th January 1901. 31. This further requires clarification as to whether the terms “Government Plantations” and “State Forests” are used interchangeably, as contended by the respondent State, or whether they carry different connotations. 32. The terms “Forest” and “ Plantation” have not been defined either under Rules 1878, or Regulation 1900 or under the Karnataka Forest Act 1963. 33. As per the Law Lexicon, (P Ramanatha Aiyar) the meaning of the terms “Forest”and “Plantation” is as under; A forest is a large tract covered with trees and under- growth; unenclosed woodland distinct kept for hunting. Forest- A great or vast wood; Manhood, in his Forest Laws, gives this particular definition of it: “A forest is a certain territory or circuit of woody grounds, and pastures known in its bounds and privilege, for the peaceable abiding of wild beasts, and fowls of forest, chase and warren, to be under the king's protection for his princely delight; replenished with beast of venary or chase, and great convert of vert for succour of the said beasts; preservation whereof there are particular laws, privileges, and officers belonging thereunto." 39 "Plantation"- A plantation is a place planted; land brought under cultivation; ground occupied by trees or vegetables, which have been planted. Thus, these two terms have different meanings and connotations. In other words - "Forest” is a natural habitat and an ecosystem, while “ Plantation” is generally man-made. 34. Whereas the expression “State Forests” has been defined under Rules 1878, Regulation 1900 and under the Karnataka Forest Act 1963 to mean the following: "State Forests” as defined under Rules, 1878 means any demarcated forest or plantation, the property of the State, which has been notified by the Chief Commissioner under Rule 9, to be a “State Forest”. “State Forests” as defined under Regulation 1900, means any land settled and notified as such in accordance with the provisions of Chapter II of this Regulation. Regulation 23 reads as under: The Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare that any forest which has been notified as a State Forest, previous to the date on which this regulation comes into force, shall be a State Forest under this Regulation. 40 35. Section 2(14) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 defines the terms “ Reserved Forest” to mean any land settled and notified as such in accordance with the provisions of Chapter II of the Act. 36. Section 23 of the Act, 1963 reads as under: "Reserved Forests constituted previous to passing of this Act.- (1) Any forest which has been notified as a State Forest under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1900, or as a reserved forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, the Madras Forest Act 1882, or the Hyderabad Forest Act, 1355F, prior to the date on which this Act comes into force, shall be a reserved forest under this Act." 37. Thus, from the reading of the aforesaid definitions, it becomes clear that any land in order to constitute “State Forests” or the “Reserved Forests” as the case may be, the land ought to have been declared as the “State Forest” under the relevant provisions of law. In the instant case, no such notification has been issued, declaring Machohalli plantation as “State Forest”. As already noted above, Machohalli plantation has been classified as the “Government plantation” in the Government Notification No. 10407-ft.153-95, dated 29th May 1896 as well as in Government Notification No." 41 422-Ft.F.15-1900, dated 7th January 1901 which is reiterated in the Notification dated 16.10.1933 issued under Section 30 of the Mysore Forest Regulation No. XI of 1900. Therefore, the contention of the respondent- State that the said notifications are to be construed as declaring Machohalli “plantation” as the “State Forest” cannot be accepted. 38. Consequently, even if the aforesaid two documents, namely Notification dated 25.03.1881 and Proclamation dated 02.04.1881 had been produced, the same would not have altered the course of findings at least to the extent of the nature of the land as found with reference to notifications dated 29.05.1896 and 07.01.1901 in the order passed in W.P.No.7200/2008. 39. The other contention of the respondent-State that the findings in the order passed in W.P.No.7200/2008 were confined only in respect of Sy.No.1 of Kadugodi plantation and were therefore not binding with respect to the land, subject matter of the present writ petition, also 42 cannot be countenanced, for both the lands, subject matter of the earlier writ petition and this writ petition have been notified as “Government Plantation” in the very same notifications. Further, the proceedings initiated under Section 64A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 stem from the purported declaration of the subject land as "State Forest" under the said notifications. Once the question regarding the classification and declaration of the nature of the lands subject matter of the same notifications has been determined, the benefit of the same cannot be denied to the petitioner herein, who is similarly situated. There cannot be two different yardsticks, lest it offend the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. 40. The other contention regarding the petitioner approbating and reprobating also does not merit consideration in the light of the affidavit dated 11.03.2026 filed by the authorised signatory of the petitioner, deposing to the effect that the petitioner had approached the Department of Revenue with a request to 43 grant 16 guntas of land in the adjoining Government land bearing Sy.No.81 of Machohalli Village, which is not part of the subject land. There is also nothing on record to indicate that even the said land is a forest land. 41. Though the learned Additional Advocate General emphatically submitted that the records maintained by the Forest Department would have to be considered, no such records are produced to evidence Machohalli plantation has been classified and maintained as "State Forests". Therefore, the reliance placed by the learned Additional Advocate General on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Narinder Singh supra is of no avail. 42. The reliance placed by the learned Additional Advocate General on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of I.S.Nirvane Gowda and this Court in the case of Girish Achaar is also of no avail, as the said Judgments were with reference to declared State forests, which is not the case at hand. 44 43. Reference to the Judgment in the case of Manish Goel supra, is of no relevance inasmuch as the issue being determined is with regard process of classification and declaration of the nature of the land, and no direction has been issued in contravention of law or the statutory provision. 44. Appropriate to refer to paragraph 3 of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rohan, Vijay, Nahar supra which reads as under: "3. Judicial discipline is the ethic that turns hierarchy into harmony. It requires courtesy, restraint, and obedience to binding precedent even where a judge is personally unpersuaded. The lawful course is to apply the precedent and, if needed, record reasons for inviting a larger Bench to reconsider it. The unlawful and unjust course is to distinguish in name while disregarding in substance, or to recast issues in order to sidestep a rule that binds. “Stare decisis et non quieta movere” which means to stand by decisions and not to disturb settled matters, is not a slogan but a safeguard of equality before the law. Judges do not sit to settle scores. The gavel is an instrument of reason and not a weapon of reprisal. A vindictive stance is incompatible with the oath to uphold the Constitution and the law." 45. For the aforesaid reasons and analysis, this Court is of the considered view that: a) The order dated 25.05.2012 passed by the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.7200/2008 45 holding lands subject matter of the notifications dated 29.05.1896 and 07.01.1901 being "Government Plantation" and not "State Forests," holds good even in respect of the land, subject matter of the present writ petition. b) In the light of the order dated 25.05.2012 passed in W.P.No.7200/2008 confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.4283/2012 and dismissal of Special Petition (Civil) diary No.10430/2020 the impugned orders passed by respondents 1 and 2 cannot be sustained. c) Non-production of notification dated 25.03.1881 and proclamation dated 02.04.1881 would be of no consequence inasmuch as the essential requirement of declaration of subject land as "State Forests" has not been complied. 46. Points raised above answered accordingly. 47. For the aforesaid reasons, following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is allowed. (ii) Order dated 17.10.2022 passed by Respondent No. 2 and the order dated 30.06.2023 passed by 46 Respondent No.1 as per Annexures-B and A, respectively, are hereby set aside. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SBN