- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28292 WP No. 11118 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.11118 OF 2026 (KLR-RR/SUR) BETWEEN: 1. THIMMAPPA S/O LATE ANJANAPPA SINCE DEAD REPRESENTED BY THEIR LR'S T.MEENA D/O LATE THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS AJAYA BUILDING, GOODS SHED COLONY 3RD CROSS, 2ND FLOOR, TUMAKURU-572 102. 2. T RAKHI D/O LATE THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS NO.61/1 G S COLONY BEHIND INDIRA COLLEGE TUMAKURU:572 102. 3. AJAY T S/O LATE THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 1ST MAIN, 3RD CROSS, BEHIND INDIRA COLLEGE GOODS SHED COLONY TUMAKURU-572 102. 4. T VEENA D/O LATE THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS AJAYA BUILDING, GOODS SHED COLONY Digitally signed by CHAYA S A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28292 WP No. 11118 of 2026 3RD CROSS, 2ND FLOOR TUMAKURU-572 102. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. YATHISHKUMAR K.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMAKURU DISTRICT PIN CODE:572 101. 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TIPTUR TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT PIN CODE : 572 201. 3. THASILDHAR CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TUMAKURU DISTRICT PIN CODE: 572 214. 4. RFO BUKKAPATTANA, RESERVE FOREST TIPTUR PIN CODE: 572 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SPOORTHY HEGDE N., HCGP) THIS W P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE- FORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO-3 IN R/MIS/08/2025. ISSUE DIRECTION TO REPONDENTS NO 1 TO 4 TO RESTORE THE NAME OF THE PETITIONERS IN COLUM 9 OF RTC IN SY.NO 31 OF MUTHUGADAHALLI BLOCK CHIKNAYAKANAHALLI TALUK AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28292 WP No. 11118 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER Learned HCGP accepts notice for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing order dated 12.03.2026 passed by the respondent No.3. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the land in question has been granted by the revenue authorities and also the revenue records stands in the name of the petitioners. Accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 4. Per contra, learned HCGP sought for justifying the impugned order stating that since the land in question is a forest land and therefore, the revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to grant the land in question. 5. Having taken note of the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is forthcoming - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28292 WP No. 11118 of 2026 from the writ papers that the land in question has been notified as the Forest Land as per the notification dated 12.10.1926 by the Government of Mysuru (Annexure - C). 6. In that view of the matter, following the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka and others vs. IS Nirvane Gowda and others reported in (2007) 15 SCC 744 and in the case of T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad IN RE vs. Union of India and others, Gaurav Kumar Bansal, IN RE reported in (2025) 2 SCC 641, I am of the view that the Revenue Authorities have no role to grant land in so far as the Land belonging to the Department of Forest is concerned. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE MH/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23