- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:715 WP No. 53 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 53 OF 2026 (GM-FOR) BETWEEN: 1. SMT NOORJAHAN W/O LATE CHINTAMANI MOHAMMED MUJEEB AGED 62 YEARS R/AT NO.21/6, SPENCER ROAD, 1ST CROSS, FRAZER TOWN, BANGALORE-560005. 2. SRI.MOINUDDIN C M S/O LATE C.M.MUJEEB AGED 41 YEARS R/AT NO.21/6, SPENCER ROAD, 1ST CROSS, FRAZER TOWN, BANGALORE-560005 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KESHAVA BHAT A.,ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:715 WP No. 53 of 2026 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE DESIGNATED OFFICER CUM THE ASSISTANT FOREST CONSERVATIVE OFFICER CHINTAMANI SUB-DIVISION CHINTAMANI TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563101. 3. THE REGIONAL FOREST OFFICER CHINTAMANI SUB-DIVISION CHINTAMANI TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563101. 4. RANGE FOREST OFFICER CHINTAMANI SUB-DIVISION CHINTAMANI TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563101. 5. THE SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIKAS SOUDHA BANGALORE-560001. 6. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SUB-DIVISION CHIKKABALLAPURA CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:715 WP No. 53 of 2026 7. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101. 8. THE TAHASILDAR CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHIKKABALLAPURA DISTRICT CHIKKABALLAPURA-562101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B. RAVINDRANATH., ADVOCATE) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 08.12.2025 IN NO.2/5.0.2/0/-/2025-26/451 VIDE ANNEXURE A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:715 WP No. 53 of 2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioners assert ownership of 20 acres in Sy.No.125 of Hebbari Village, Chintamani [the subject property] and they are aggrieved by the second respondent's order dated 08.12.2025 [Annexure-A] under Section 64A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 [for short, 'the Forest Act']. The second respondent has opined that the petitioners have encroached a forest land and therefore they must, within thirty [30] days, remove themselves and their assets, including the standing crops, from the subject property. 2. Sri A. Keshava Bhat, the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners' cause in the present proceedings is in the light of the orders of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 16.01.2025 in Writ Petition No.802/2025 [GM-FOR], and the learned counsel in elaboration submits that this Court has quashed the notice issued by the second - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:715 WP No. 53 of 2026 respondent to the occupants of the neighbouring extent directing a fresh enquiry and that the second respondent is in the midst of such enquiry. The learned counsel emphasizes that, as part of such enquiry, the second respondent is examining all the records including the genuineness of the grants relied upon by the occupants of the adjacent lands and the mutation entries in their favour. 3. Sri B. Ravindranath, the learned Additional Government Advocate who accepts notice for the respondents reserving liberty to argue on merits, submits that this Court may not entertain the writ petition because the petitioners can avail appellate remedy under Section 64-A(3) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 [for short, 'the Forest Act'] read with Rule 164A of the Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969. In reply, Sri.A.Keshava Bhat submits that the petitioners will not contest the assertion that they have appellate remedy against the second - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:715 WP No. 53 of 2026 respondent's impugned order but would seek this Court's interference for re-examination in the light of the fact that the second respondent is re-examining all the circumstances as aforementioned. When queried, Sri.A.Keshava Bhat is categorical that the petitioners do not propose to make any structural changes in the subject lands. 4. These circumstances are considered, and this Court finds at this stage that there must be a comprehensive decision as against disjointed examination of records for complete adjudication on whether the land in Survey No.125 of Hebbari Village, Chintamani is a forest land. A comprehensive decision will result in a cohesive resolution. As such, leaving open all questions on the merits of the respondents' assertion that the petitioners are in possession of forest land, the petition is partly allowed quashing the second respondent's order dated 08.12.2025 [Annexure-A] and restoring the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:715 WP No. 53 of 2026 proceedings to the second respondent for simultaneous consideration of the petitioners' response under Section 64-A(1) of the Forest Act with the pending responses as against notices issued under this provision. 5. The petitioners, without any further notice, shall appear before the second respondent on 29.01.2026. It is expressly stipulated that the petitioners shall not make any structural changes in the subject land and that if there is any such effort, it should be open to the concerned from the State Forest Department to take appropriate action. It is needless to observe that the petitioners will be at liberty to place on record all documents that they propose to rely upon to vindicate their stand. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4