Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 51400 (KAR)

SRI. MOHAN PRABHU v. THE CHIEF SECRETARY

RP/518/2025 · 2026-01-09

C M Joshi

Review Petitionbody2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1394-DB RP No. 518 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI REVIEW PETITION NO. 518 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SRI MOHAN PRABHU, S/O. SUBRAYA PRABHU, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O HIREMAKKI, HOSAKULI POST, HONNAVARA-581 334. 2. RAMAKRISHNA HEGDE, S/O. SUBRAYA HEGDE, AGED ABOUT 94 YEARS, R/O BANKANA HITHLU, MUGWA POST, HONNAVARA-581 334. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI HEGDE S RAMAKRISHNA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANASOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS (HOFF), KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT, ARANYABHAVAN, 18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003. 3. THE CHIEF CONSERVATIVE OF FOREST, Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1394-DB RP No. 518 of 2025 KARWAR DISTRICT, UTTARA KANNADA-581 301. 4. THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER, HONNAVARA TALUK, HONNAVARA, DISTRICT: UTTARA KANNADA-581 334. 5. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, HONNAVAR, DISTRICT UTTARA KANNADA-581 334. 6. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, HONNAVAR DIVISION, HONNAVARA-581 334. 7. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, NORTH CANARA DISTRICT, KARWAR-581 301. 8. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, HONNAVAR SUBDIVISION, HONNAVAR-581 334. 9. THAHASILDAR, HONNAVARA TALUK, HONNAVAR-581 334. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S HARISH, G.A.) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SEC. 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 17.09.2025 IN WP NO.26911/2025 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1394-DB RP No. 518 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C M JOSHI ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, IA No.1/2025 is allowed. Delay of 21 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. The petitioners have filed the present review petition seeking review of the order dated 17.09.2025, whereby the writ petition being WP.No.26911/2025 (GM-RES-PIL) was dismissed. 3. The review petitioners had filed the said petition as a public interest litigation questioning the forest activities being carried out by the Forest Department in Sy.No.86A of Hosakuli Village, Honnavara Taluk, Uttara Kannada District. It is the petitioners' case that the land is fallow land and that it could not be treated as forest land. 4. It is material to note that the Government of Karnataka has no objection for the said land to be used as forest land. It is also clear from the record that the Forest Department is claiming the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1394-DB RP No. 518 of 2025 land as forest land. It was contented on behalf of the petitioners/review petitioners that the subject lands were not included as a part of the lands, which were considered as ‘deemed forest’ in the affidavit filed by State of Karnataka before the Supreme Court in T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India and others: WP(c) No.202/1995. 5. Learned counsel for the review petitioners contend that no land could be considered as deemed forest if it was not included as a deemed forest in the said affidavit or listed in the notification dated 05.02.2022. 6. The contention that no land other than that as set out in the affidavit filed before the Supreme Court in T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad (Supra) can be considered as forest is erroneous. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad (Supra), the lands that were declared as forests could not be diverted for non-forest purposes. However, there is no prohibition for including fallow lands as forest. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1394-DB RP No. 518 of 2025 6. We are unable to accept that the demarking and using certain Government lands as forest lands would adversely affect public interest. 7. We find no grounds to review the impugned order. The review petition is, accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (C M JOSHI) JUDGE NR/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1