Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2018
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA S. CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M. SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO.29328 OF 2018(GM-FOR),
A/W
WRIT PETITION NOs.29336-29362 OF 2018(GM-FOR),
A/W
WRIT PETITION NOs.33051 - 33052 OF 2018(GM-FOR)
AND
WRIT PETITION NOs.33820-33822 OF 2018
IN W.P. NO.29328/2018:
BETWEEN:
SRI. B.R. GANAPATHI SINGH
S/O LATE B.K.R.N. SINGH
AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.195
4TH MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPET
BENGALURU - 560 018. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADVOCATE
FOR SRI. M.M. SWAMY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST
ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT
M.S. BUILDING
2
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST
ENVIRONMENT AND ECOLOGY
4TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
M.S. BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS
4TH FLOOR, ARANYA BHAVAN
18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM
BENGALURU - 560 003.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VASANTH V. FERNANDES, HCGP)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED:29.06.2018 PASSED BY THE R-2 TITLED AS
PROCEEDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF
SECRETARY, FOREST, ENVIRONMENT AND ECOLOGY
DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING. BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-
J.
IN W.P. Nos.29336-362/2018:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. RAJANNA
S/O SRI. RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT HONNEBAGI VILLAGE
3
KASABA HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214
(SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED)
2. SRI. SHIVABASAVAIAH
S/O LATE SANNACHOWDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT HONNEBAGI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214.
3. SMT. BHANU BEE
D/O SRI. KHALLANDER SAB
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT HONNEBAGI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214
(SENIOR CIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED)
4. SRI. NARASIMAHAIAH
S/O LATE RANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT HONNEBAGI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214
(SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED)
5. SRI. JAVARAIAH
S/O SRI. JAVARAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT HONNEBAGI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214
(SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED)
6. SRI. S. RENUKAPPA
S/O SRI. SHIVANNA
4
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
R/AT HONNEBAGI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214
(SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED)
7. SRI. KARIYAPPA
S/O SRI. DODDARANAGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT HONNEBAGI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214.
8. SMT. MANJULA
D/O SRI. RAJAIAH
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
R/AT HONNEBAGI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214.
9. SRI. KRISHNAIAH
S/O SRI. RANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT HONNEBAGI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214.
10. SRI. RANGASWAMY
S/O SRI. BHUTHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT HONNEBAGI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214
(SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED)
11. SMT. B.L. SUSHEELA
W/O SRI. H.M. SURENDRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
5
R/AT HONNEBAGI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214.
12. SRI. PANCHAKSHARI
S/O SRI. KEMPARANGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
R/AT HONNEBAGI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214.
13. SRI. UMESHAIAH
S/O SRI. CHANDRAPPA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT BULLENAHALLI VILLAGE
SETTYKERE HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214.
14. SRI. B.G. KENCHAPPA
S/O LATE GUDDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT BULLENAHALLI VILLAGE
SETTYKERE HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214
(SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED)
15. SMT. SIDDAGANGAMMA
W/O SRI. NANJUNDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT BULLENAHALLI VILLAGE
SETTYKERE HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214
(SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED)
16. SRI. B.S. RAMESHAIAH
S/O SRI. SIDDRAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
6
R/AT BULLENAHALLI VILLAGE
SETTYKERE HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214.
17. SRI. H.B. MADHAKARI NAYAKA
S/O SRI. H.K. BASAVARAJU
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
R/AT MANCHEKATTE VILLAGE
SETTYKERE HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214.
18. SRI. K. RANGASWAMY
S/O LATE KENCHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT BULLENAHALLI VILLAGE
SETTYKERE HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214.
19. SRI. MANJAIAH
S/O SRI. HANUMANTHAIAH
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/AT GOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE, SETTYKERE HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214
(SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED)
20. SRI. NINGAIAH
S/O SRI. SIDDARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
R/AT BULLENAHALLI VILLAGE
SETTYKERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214.
21. SMT. RATHNAMMA
D/O SRI. LAKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT MANCHEKATTE VILLAGE
SETTYKERE HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
7
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214.
22. SMT. A.R. LALITHA
W/O SRI. H.K. BASAVARAJ
R/AT MANCHEKATTE VILLAGE
SETTYKERE HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214.
23. SRI. SIDDARAMAIAH
S/O SRI. LAKSHMANA
AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS
R/AT BULLENAHALLI VILLAGE
SETTYKERE HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214
(SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED)
24. SRI. RANGAIAH
S/O SRI. BANDAIAH
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT BULLENAHALLI VILLAGE
SETTYKERE HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214
(SENIOR CITIZENSHIP NOT CLAIMED)
25. SRI. B. PRATHAP SINGH
S/O SRI. BALAJI SINGH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT MANCHEKATTE VILLAGE
SETTYKERE HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214.
26. SRI. B.L. BHARATH KUMAR
S/O LATE LAKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
R/AT MANCHEKATTE VILLAGE
SETTYKERE HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214.
8
27. SRI. B.G. LAKKAPPA
S/O LATE GUDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT BULLENAHALLI VILLAGE
SETTYKERE HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADVOCATE
FOR SRI. M.M. SWAMY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST
ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT
4TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF FOREST
ENVIRONMENT AND ECOLOGY
4TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU - 56 001.
3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
M.S. BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
ARANYA BHAVAN,
18TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM
BENGALURU - 560 003.
... RESPONDENTS
9
(BY SRI. VASANTH V. FERNANDES, HCGP)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED:29.06.2018 PASSED BY THE R-2
TITLED AS PROCEEDINGS OF THE OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL
CHIEF SECRETARY, FOREST, ENVIRONMENT AND ECOLOGY
DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING. BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE-
M.
IN W.P. Nos. 33051 - 33052/2018 &
W.P NOs.33820-33822 OF 2018:
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. PARAMESHVARAIAH
S/O VENKATARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT GOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214.
2. SMT. KASHIAMMA
W/O MUNISWAMY GOWNDAR
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT GOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214.
REP BY HER GPA HOLDER
SRI. KANDASWAMY
S/O KANNAGOWNDAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/AT GOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214.
10
3. SMT. MANJULA
W/O S. CHINNAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
R/AT GOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214.
REP BY HER GPA HOLDER
SRI. S. CHINNAPPA
S/O SUBBAIAH NAIDU
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT GOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214.
4. SMT. DHANABHAGYAMMA
W/O VDIVELU
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT GOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214.
REP BY HER GPA HOLDER
SRI. SUBRAMANYA
S/O VADIVELU
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
R/AT GOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214.
5. SMT. KRISHNAVENI
W/O K. PONNASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT GOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214.
11
REP BY HER GPA HOLDER
SRI. K. PONNASWAMY
S/O KATTIPILLE
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/AT GOLLARAHALLI VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI
CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI TALUK
TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 214. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
3RD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA - 01.
2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPT. OF REVENUE
GOVT. OF KARNATAKA
ROOM NO. 505, 5TH FLOOR
GATE NO.2, M.S. BUILDINGS
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
FOREST, ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT
ROOM NO. 448, 4TH FLOOR, GATE NO.2
M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.
4. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
ARANYA BHAVAN, 18TH CROSS
BANGALORE - 560 003.
5. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR FOREST
HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN - 573 201.
6. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
TUMKUR DIVISION, TUMKUR - 572 101.
12
7. FOREST SETTLEMENT OFFICER TIPTUR RANGE
AND THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, TIPTUR
TIPTUR SUB-DIVISION, B.H. ROAD
TIPTUR - 572 201.
8. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA
TUMKUR - 572 101.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VASANTH V. FERNANDES, HCGP)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 29.06.2018 (AS PER ANNEXURE-M) ISSUED IN
PROCEEDINGS NO.2 OF 2015) [RECONSIDERATION OF THE
ORDERS OF THE COURT OF THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF
SECRETARY (FOREST, ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT)] OR IN
THE ALTERNATIVE QUASH THE ORDER DATED 04.09.2014
WHICH IS PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE DATED
05.09.2014 (AS PER ANNEXURE-E).
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED ON 02.11.2018 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, B.M. SHYAM
PRASAD J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
These writ petitions are filed impugning the order dated 29.6.2018, passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Forest, Ecology and Environment, respondent No. 2 (referred to as 'Impugned Order dated 29.6.2018') reviewing the 13 earlier order dated 21.12.2015 published in the Karnataka Gazette bearing No. 1768, Part IV-A dated 30.12.2015 (referred to as, 'Notified order dated 21.12.2015'). Though all the petitioners have called in question the Impugned Order dated 29.6.2018, and as such their grievances are similar, they are differently placed as regards the impact of the Impugned Order dated 29.6.2018 on their respective rights.
2. The petitioner in WP No. 29328/2018 is a lessee of an area measuring 10.53 hectares in survey No. 130 (Part) of Honnebagi Village, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur District. The lease granted in favour of the petitioner is renewed under a registered Mining Lease Deed for a period of 20 years from 30.12.2003 to 29.12.2023. The petitioner has obtained the consent for operation from the Karnataka State Pollution Control Board under Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and Air (Prevention 14 and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 - valid until 30.6.2021. The petitioner has approached the Monitoring Committee, Department of Mines and Geology by filing application dated 4.3.2016, for Work Permission to resume and recommence the mining operations in the aforesaid land. The petitioner has asserted that the aforementioned land is a Government class 'C' and 'D' land, and not a 'forest land'.
3. The petitioner, filed writ petition in W.P. No. 12737/2017, seeking directions to the Monitoring Committee, Department of Mines and Geology, to consider the petitioner's application dated 4.3.2016 for Work Permission. The petitioner relied upon the Notified order dated 21.12.2015. The then Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Forest, Ecology and Environment, Government of Karnataka, vide this Notified Order dated 21.12.2015 had concluded that the State Government, as part of its policy, had issued 15 different orders/circulars/proceedings for (i) retransfer of all 'C' and 'D' class lands (except those that were already notified as 'Reserve Forest') from Forest Department to the Revenue Department, (ii) clarifying that as of 3.1.1991 that the status of 'C' and 'D' class lands stood resumed/vested in the Revenue Department, and therefore all 'C' and 'D' class lands transferred to the Forest Department stand resumed to the Revenue Department as on 3.1.1991 with the sole exception of 'C' and 'D' class lands which as of 3.1.1991 were notified by the Forest Department as 'Reserve Forest' under the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act/Rules and that the Forest Department cease to have control over these lands.
4. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to dispose of the writ petition in WP No. 12737/2017 directing the concerned authorities to inform, within a period of four weeks, the Monitoring Committee, 16 Department of Mines and Geology as to the status of the petitioner's aforementioned land. The petitioner filed a contempt petition in CCC No. 875/2017 complaining of deliberate and willful disobedience of the directions issued by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 12737/2017. The then Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Forest, Ecology and Environment filed an affidavit, in response to the statements made in the contempt petition in CCC No. 875/2017, inter-alia stating that vide the Communication dated 22.8.2017, he had reported to the Monitoring Committee in compliance with the directions issued in the writ petition in WP No. 12737/2017. This Report dated 22.8.2017 was also enclosed. The then Additional Chief Secretary stated in this Report that the Law Department of the Government of Karnataka had opined that the Notified Order dated 21.12.2015 was valid, and the then Additional Chief Secretary had not violated any law in passing such Notified Order dated 21.12.2015. The 17 contempt proceedings in CCC No. 875/2017 was closed in view of the Report dated 22.8.2017.
5. When the Monitoring Committee, Department of Mines and Geology did not consider the petitioner's application for issuance of Work Permission despite the Report dated 22.8.2017, the petitioner filed an application namely, IA No.37377/2018 in WP (C) No. 562/2009 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court seeking directions to the Monitoring Committee, Department of Mines and Geology to permit the petitioner to resume mining operations. This application is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
6. Meanwhile, the petitioner learnt that the Notified Order dated 21.12.2015 was reviewed by the Additional Chief Secretary - respondent No. 2 holding that the Notified Order dated 21.12.2015 was issued (a) usurping the powers of the Forest Settlement Officer under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, (b) the Central 18 Empowered Committee was of the opinion that it would be in contempt of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on IA No. 212/2014 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 562/2009, (c) was passed by a 'non-existent court', and (d) in violation of the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, the Karnataka Forest Rules 1969 and the Karnataka Government (Transaction of Business) Rules 1977.
7. The petitioners in WP No. 29336-29362/2018, who are twenty seven in number, have asserted that they have been in peaceful cultivation of their respective lands in Honnebagi Village and other villages, of Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur District. The State Government has granted these respective lands to them under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules. They have also been issued with Saguvali Chits - title deeds- either in their favour, or in favour of their predecessor-in-title (their ancestors). The lands granted 19 to them in these villages are 'C' and 'D' class lands. The Government had issued Government Order dated 3.1.1991 re-transferring all 'C' and 'D' class lands to the Revenue Department when it was informed that several acres of lands, which were classified as 'C' and 'D' lands, were indiscriminately transferred to the Forest Department for afforestation /social forestry purposes. The Government had also issued Circular dated 17.9.1991 clarifying that all 'C' and 'D' class lands, which were not already notified as 'Reserve Forest' under the Karnataka Forest Act/ Rules as of 3.1.1991, stood retransferred/resumed, and vested with the Revenue Department.
8. The Forest Department, accepting such vesting/resumption of 'C' and 'D' class lands, requested the State Government to hand over 323.88 hectares in Survey Nos. 41, 42 and 43 of Janeeru Village of 20 Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur District for the purposes of afforestation. Despite the fact that, this extent of land was made over to the Forest Department pursuant to its request, Notification dated 4.8.1994 (referred to as 'original Notification dated 4.8.1994) was issued under Section 4 of the Karnataka Forest Act,1963 declaring that it had been decided that the aforesaid extent of 323.88 hectares of land in Janeeru Village of Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur District as Reserve Forest. Further, the Assistant Commissioner, Tiptur was appointed as the Forest Settlement Officer for the purposes of enquiry under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963; the Divisional Forest Officer, Tumkur District was appointed to represent the State Government in any enquiry by the said Forest Settlement Officer.
9. The Forest Settlement Officer, by Order dated 7.11.2006, after conducting the requisite enquiry 21 proceedings, concluded that the extent of 323.88 hectares of land in Janeeru village, Chikkanayakanahalli, Taluk, Tumkur District could not be notified as 'Reserve Forest' because of the Government Order dated 3.1.1991, and the later circulars/proceedings/orders, including the Government Order dated 7.6.1993. This order dated 7.11.2006 was not challenged and attained finality. As such, the necessary declaration under Section 17 of the Forest Act, 1963 was not issued. Even the Chief Conservator of Forests, vide his Communication dated 15.12.2008 had also placed on record many infirmities in the original Notification dated 4.8.1994 requesting the Government to withdraw the said Notification.
10. However, the Department of Forest, Ecology and Environment, Government of Karnataka issued a Corrigendum dated 4.9.2014 (published in the Official Gazette on 5.9.2014) seeking to substitute the schedule 22 in the original Notification dated 4.8.1994. By virtue of this Corrigendum dated 4.9.2014, the Department of Forest, Ecology and Environment, Government of Karnataka sought to replace the lands in Janeeru village with the lands in Hosahalli, Gollarahalli, Honnebagi, Bullenahalli, Manchikatte, Bagganahalli and Sondenahalli of Chikkanayakanahalli taluk, Tumkur District. The petitioners, who have been granted title to the respective lands in the villages of Honnebagi, Gollarahalli, Bullenahalli, Manchikatte Villages of Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur district, impugned the Corrigendum dated 4.9.2014 in writ petition in W.P. No. 38290-311/2015. A learned Coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of this writ petition by order dated 14.9.2015 granting liberty to the petitioners to make a representation to the Secretary, Department of Forest, Ecology and Environment, Government of Karnataka, within a period of one month. This Court directed the said authority to 23 consider such representation, if made, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners/their representatives, and to pass a reasoned and speaking order. Further, the Secretary, Department of Forest, Ecology and Environment was also directed to dispose of the representation that the petitioners could make within a period of two months from the date of such representation. Similar writ petitions filed by similarly placed other aggrieved persons, were also disposed of with similar directions.
11. The then Additional Chief Secretary issued the Notified Order dated 30.12.2015 after hearing the petitioners, setting aside the Corrigendum dated 4.9.2014, and the original Notification dated 4.8.1994 issued under the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act as invalid. This Notified Order dated 30.12.2015 was not challenged by any person. Therefore, it attained finality. But, after a lapse of more than two 24 years, the petitioners were served with notice of hearing of review proceedings initiated by the State Government for re-examination of the Notified Order dated 21.12.2015 purportedly on the basis of public interest litigation as per Karnataka Forest Act, 1963.
12. The petitioners in W.P. Nos. 33051-52 & 33820-822 of 2018 challenging the impugned order dated 29.6.2018 have made similar assertions as made by petitioners in W.P. Nos. 29336-362/2018, but assert that they are the owners of respective lands in Gollarahalli village, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur District. These petitioners have also asserted that their respective lands have been either granted to them under the provisions of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, or their occupation is regularised by the State Government as permissible in law.
13. Mr. Ashok Haranahalli, the learned Senior advocate and the other counsel for the petitioners 25 primarily canvassed that the impugned order is passed without jurisdiction. Neither the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, nor the General Clauses Act confer jurisdiction on the respondent - Additional Chief Secretary to review, or re-examine, or recall the Notified Order dated 21.12.2015; that the then Additional Chief Secretary had conducted the proceedings, as a quasi-judicial authority, acting under the directions of a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court in the writ petitions in WP No. 38290- 38311/2015 and other similar writ petitions; that if the State Government was aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29.6.2018, it ought to have challenged the same either under the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act, or otherwise in a manner known to law; that the respondent no. 2 has assumed the power to review/re- examine and recall only because of an opinion from the learned Advocate General, and that the impugned order is arbitrary and without application of mind. 26
14. Mr. Vasanth V. Fernandes, the learned High Court Government Pleader, while seeking to support the impugned order dated 29.6.2018, did not dispute that the State Government had issued different orders/circulars/proceedings for resumption of 'C' and 'D' class lands to the Revenue Department from the Forest Department; that the State Government had also clarified that with effect from 3.1.1991 all 'C' and 'D' class lands stood re-transferred/resumed to, and vested with, the Revenue department except those lands which, as of 3.1.1991, were notified as 'Reserve Forest' under the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act/Rules; that pursuant to such orders/circulars and proceedings, all the 'C' and 'D' class lands stood resumed to the Revenue department. He also did not dispute that the original Notification 4.8.1994 issued under Section 4 of the Karnataka Forest Act included only 323.88 hectares of land in Janeeru Village, Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk and Tumkur District. But, 27 by Corrigendum dated 4.9.2014, the schedule to the original Notification dated 4.8.1994 was sought to be substituted by replacing village of Chikkanayakanahalli taluk, Tumkur district with seven other villages of Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk, Tumkur District as contended by the petitioners.
14.1 Further, the learned High Court Government Pleader also did not dispute that the Forest Settlement Officer, appointed for the purposes of conducting enquiry under the Karnataka Forest Act, had concluded vide order dated 7.11.2006 that the original Notification dated 4.8.1994 could not have been issued because such notification was issued in respect of 'C' and 'D' class lands that were vested with the Revenue department; that this order dated 7.11.2006 was not challenged. Furthermore, he did not dispute that the Notified Order dated 21.12.2015 was notified after hearing the petitioners in the earlier round of 28 litigation, who were permitted to file representations, and that this Notified Order dated 21.12.2015 had not been challenged.
14.2 Crucially, the learned High Court Government pleader also did not dispute that the Karnataka Forest Act provide for power of review and that the Notified Order dated 21.12.2015 could be challenged under the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. He only sought to justify the impugned order dated 29.6.2018 contending that, even if this order could be said to be illegal, because another illegal order viz., the Notified Order dated 21.12.2015 was reviewed, this Court should not interfere with the impugned order.
15. Thus, the questions that arise for consideration are (a) whether the impugned order dated 29.6.2018 is invalid for want of jurisdiction, or not? (b) 29 whether the said order deserves to be interfered with, or not?
16. It is a settled law that the power of review is a creature of statute; such power cannot be exercised either by a court, or quasi-judicial body, or an administrative authority unless such power of review is conferred under the statute. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Mawasi [(2012) 7 SCC 200], while examining the scope of review under the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, with reference to the substantive power in the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 137 of the Constitution of India to rectify or recall its own order, has referred to its own earlier decisions wherein it was held, "....it will be apposite to observe that the power of review is a creature of the statute and no court or quasi- judicial body or administrative authority can review its 30 own judgement or order or decision unless it is legally empowered to do so...". Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated that review powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. The jurisdiction of review can be exercised only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record, distinct from an error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an 'appeal in disguise'.
17. In the present case, it is undisputed that the respondent No. 2 has declared the Notified Order dated 21.12.2015 as invalid while re-examining the merits of such Notified Order in exercise of powers of review. The respondent No. 2 has tried to justify the exercise of such power of review by placing reliance upon Section 21 of 31 the General Clauses Act, 1897. However, the present lis is as regards the Notification, and the Corrigendum thereto, issued under the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. A learned Division Bench of this Court called upon the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Forest Ecology and Environment to adjudicate, by a speaking and reasoned order, after hearing the petitioners, on the merit of the Corrigendum dated 4.9.2014 issued to substitute the schedule to the original Notification dated 4.8.1994 as certain petitioners, who were aggrieved by the issuance of such Corrigendum, had approached this Court with their respective writ petitions specifically contending that the Forest Settlement Officer had concluded, way back in the year 2006 vide order dated 7.11.2006, that the original Notification dated 4.8.1994 could not have been issued as they related to 'C' and 'D' class lands that were resumed by the State Government to the Revenue 32 Department; and that this order dated 7.11.2006 had attained finality as it had remained unchallenged.
18. Therefore, the respondent No. 2 - the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Forest, Ecology and Environment was discharging a quasi- judicial function deciding on the relative merits of the contentions that impacted rights to properties. Further, the Notified Order dated 21.12.2015 was issued in exercise of such quasi-judicial function as regards the action taken under the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. Moreover, undisputedly, the State Government could have recourse to appeal against the Notified Order dated 21.12.2015 under the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. A reading of the impugned order also establishes that the Notified Order dated 21.12.2015 is declared as invalid not because of an error apparent on the face of the record, but after a detailed reasoning and for errors - an exercise that is 33 undertaken in exercising of the appellate jurisdiction. As such, it will have to be concluded, without entering into the merits of either the Notified Order dated 21.12.2015, or expressing any opinion on the recourse that the State Government could have, that the impugned order dated 29.6.2018 is issued without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the Writ Petitions are allowed, and order dated 29.6.2018 passed by the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Forest, Ecology and Environment, respondent No. 2 is quashed. No Costs.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE nv*