MR H K LAKSHMAN GOWDA vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
ST
DATED THIS THE 21 DAY OF APRIL, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
WRIT PETITION NO. 35420 OF 2024 (GM-MM_S)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 35424 OF 2024 (GM-MM-S)
IN W.P. No. 35420/2024
BETWEEN:
1.
MR H.K. LAKSHMAN GOWDA
S/O H.T. KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS OLD
RESIDING AT MYSORE - MADIKERE ROAD
CHILKUNDA VILLAGE, HANAGODU HOBLI
HUNSURU TALUK
MYSORE - 571 105
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAKSHITH B.V.M., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SURESH T.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR GEOLOGIST
KHANIJA BHAVAN, KBL CENTURY PHASE- I
NEAR KSRTC LAYOUT
RAYANAKERE POST
YADAHALLI ROAD
MYSORE - 570 008
Digitally
signed by K
P SWETHA
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
- 2 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
2.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT
REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS
OFFICE OF DEPUTY CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS
HUNSUR
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 105
3.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
RD TH
3 GATE, 5 FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
MYSORE DISTRICT
GIRIBHOVI PALYA
SIDDARTHANAGAR
MYSURU - 570 011
5. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES
(MSME AND MINES)
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001
6. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY OF FINANCE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE- 560001
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA)
- 3 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 READ
WITH ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950
PRAYING TO ISSUE APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION
MORE SPECIFICALLY A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI
QUASHING THE LETTERS DATED 19.02.2024 (ANNEXURE-B-1) AND
15.03.2024 (ANNEXURE-B-2) ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT No-2
WHERE BY THE RESPONDENT No-2 WITHDREW THEIR NO
OBJECTIONS CERTIFICATE (NOC) GRANTED TO THE PETITIONER
TO UNDERTAKE AND CARRY ON HIS MINING ACTIVITIES ON THE
SUBJECT LAND AND ETC.
IN W.P. NO. 35424/2024
BETWEEN:
1. MR H.K. LAKSHMAN GOWDA
S/O H.T. KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS OLD
RESIDING AT MYSORE-MADIKERE ROAD
CHILKUNDA VILLAGE, HANAGODU HOBLI
HUNSURU TALUK MYSORE - 571 105
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI RAKSHITH B.V. M., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SURESH T.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY
REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR GEOLOGIST
KHANIJA BHAVAN, KBL CENTURY PHASE - I
NEAR KSRTC LAYOUT, RAYANAKERE POST
YADAHALLI ROAD, MYSORE - 570 008
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
KARNATAKA FOREST DEPARTMENT
REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY CONSERVATOR
OF FORESTS
OFFICE OF DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
HUNSUR, MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 105
3.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
- 4 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
RD TH
3 GATE, 5 FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001
4.
THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT. OF REVENUE
MYSORE DISTRICT
GIRIBHOV PALYA
SIDDARTHANAGAR
MYSURU - 570 011
5.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES
(MSME AND MINES)
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001
6. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY OF FINANCE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE- 560001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 READ
WITH ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950
PRAYING TO ISSUE APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR
DIRECTION, MORE SPECIFICALLY A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE LETTERS DATED 19.02.2024
(ANNEXURE B-1) AND 15.03.2024 (ANNEXURE B-2) ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.2 WHEREBY THE RESPONDENT NO.2
WITHDREW THEIR NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE (NOC)
GRANTED TO THE PETITIONER TO UNDERTAKE AND CARRY
ON HIS MINING ACTIVITIES ON THE SUBJECT LAND AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED AS
UNDER:
- 5 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
INTRODUCTION
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition,
W.P.No.35420/2024, impugning the order dated 30.11.2024
[hereinafter, ' the first impugned order '] passed by respondent
No.1 (Senior Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology,
Mysuru) bearing No. DMG/SGM/SQL/A No-1/2024-25/1630,
directing that the quarrying operations under Lease No.
MYSNS549 (QL 549) in respect of 4 acres of land in Survey No.23
of Athiguppe Village, Hunsur Taluk, Mysore District be stopped.
2. The petitioner has filed W.P.No.35424 of 2024 impugning the
order dated 05.12.2024 [ the second impugned order ], bearing
No. DMG/SGM/SQL/A No-2/2024-25/1663, passed by respondent
No.1 directing that quarrying operations under Lease No.
MYSNS554 (QL 554) in respect of 3 acres 20 guntas of land in
Survey No.23 of the same village be stopped. Both the impugned
orders are hereinafter collectively referred to as 'the impugned
orders'.
- 6 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
3. Both writ petitions arise from a common factual matrix. The
petitioner holds two quarrying leases for quarrying ordinary building
stone on land bearing Survey No.23, Athiguppe Village, Hunsur
Taluk, Mysore District [hereinafter referred to as ‘ the subject
lands' ]. The core dispute pertains to whether the subject lands
constitute forest land, and whether the impugned orders stopping
the quarrying operations were validly passed, particularly in light of
the earlier orders of this Court in W.P.No.15865/2024 (GM-MM-S)
and W.P.No.15692/2024 (GM-MM-S), whereby the matter was
remanded to Respondent No.1 for de novo consideration.
4. Before examining the reliefs sought by the petitioner and the
challenge to the impugned orders, it is necessary to set out the
factual context in which the controversy involved in the present writ
petitions arises.
PREFATORY FACTS
5. At the outset, it is relevant to note the historical background
pertaining to the subject lands. As per the Government Notification
No. 1173-FT-F-145-95 dated 04.08.1900, an area of 180 acres in
Survey No.07 (Old Survey Number) of Athiguppe Village, Hunsur
Taluk was notified as Kallabetta Block-01 State Forest. It is
- 7 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
material to note that at the time of the original notification in 1900,
the old Survey No.07 encompassed a larger area which was
subsequently resurveyed in the year 1921 and subdivided into
Survey Nos.22 and 23, among others.
6. By a Government Order bearing No. AF 9226-9-FT 189-48-2
dated 17.06.1949, the Government of Mysore released 470 acres
of land from Kallabetta Block-I for agricultural and cultivation
purposes, including for the formation of the Adhi-Karnataka Aprit
Colony. Further, by Government Proceedings dated 13.04.1949,
the release of 217 acres from the Forest Department to the
Revenue Department for the said colony was sanctioned. It is the
case of the petitioner that in consequence of these releases, the
area falling in Survey No.23 of Athiguppe Village ceased to be part
of the State Forest.
7. By Government Order No. RD 32 LAD 62 dated 01.08.1964,
the C and D category land in Survey No.23 of Athiguppe Village
was transferred from the Revenue Department to the Forest
Department. Thereafter, by Government Order No. RD 54 LGP 78
dated 18.05.1978, the C and D category lands of Hunsur Taluk
were further transferred from the Revenue Department to the
- 8 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
Forest Department for land bank purposes, with effect from
30.11.1978.
8. It is pertinent to note that by the Central Government Order
No. 8-65/83-FRY(CONS) dated 13.09.1983, the Government of
India, Ministry of Agriculture, directed the State Government to
provide 211 acres (85.39 hectares) of land as compensatory
plantation/afforestation in lieu of 46.70 hectares of forest land in the
Gulledahalla Reserve Forest, Periyapattana Range, Mysore
District, which was released for the construction of the Ingalagere
Tank irrigation scheme. Pursuant thereto, the Government of
Karnataka issued Proceeding Order No. FFD 7 FGL 81, Bangalore,
dated 07.01.1984, directing that compensatory afforestation be
raised on 211 acres (85.39 hectares) of C and D class land.
9. The record indicates that advance work for compensatory
afforestation was undertaken in a 12-hectare area in the year 1987-
88, and that in the year 1988-89, compensatory afforestation was
carried out over a further 25-hectare area, along with the
construction of a cattle proof trench. It is the case of the Forest
Department that compensatory afforestation was planted over 12
hectares (29.02 acres) in Survey No. 23 and 25 hectares in Survey
No. 81, both in Athiguppe Village.
- 9 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
10. The record indicates that afforestation exercise in Survey
No.23, if any, had failed. The report of the District Task Force
indicates that the afforestation was conducted in the year 1988-89
but had failed, and it was on that basis that the No Objection
Certificate for quarrying was subsequently granted.
11. Subsequently, by Government Order No. RD 106 LGP 88
dated 03.01.1991 and 17.09.1991, all C and D category lands,
which were not declared as forest land, were transferred from the
Forest Department back to the Revenue Department. It is the case
of the petitioner, supported by a reference to the order of this Court
in W.P.No.29328/2018 and W.P.No.9511/2020, that the effect of
the said Government Order was that C and D category lands,
including those in Survey No.23 of Athiguppe Village, reverted to
the custody of the Revenue Department.
12. On 02.07.2011, the petitioner submitted an application to the
Department of Mines and Geology for the grant of a building stone
quarry lease in respect of 4 acres of land in Survey No.23,
Athiguppe Village, Hunsur Taluk, Mysore District. In accordance
with Rule 8(5) of the Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules,
1994 [hereinafter, ' KMMC Rules '], No Objection Certificates were
- 10 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
sought from the Revenue Department and the Forest Department,
by letters dated 08.07.2011 and 24.08.2011, respectively.
13. By a letter dated 25.07.2011 (No. MAG 24/11-12), the
Tahsildar, Hunsur Taluk, issued a No Objection Certificate,
recording inter alia that the 29.02 guntas area in Survey No.23,
Athiguppe Village, was Government Kharab land; that 4 acres of
land in Survey No.23 was free for the sanction of quarry lease; that
the said area was not reserved for any public purpose, either by the
Government or local organisations; and that the said area did not
belong to the Forest Department and was not a reserved forest.
14. By a letter dated 04.09.2012 (No. A9-LND-CR-2/2012-13),
respondent No.2, the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Hunsur
Division, Hunsur [ the DCF ], conveyed its no objection certificate
[ NOC ] to the Senior Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology.
The said NOC recorded that the Assistant Conservator of Forests
and Technical Assistant, Hunsur Division, had conducted a spot
inspection by visiting the site on 24.08.2012, and that it was found
that the land in Survey No.23, Athiguppe Village, was Government
C and D category land and did not fall under the limits of the Forest
Department. It was further recorded that the said area was situated
at 11 km from the Veeranhosahalli Wildlife Forest area, 21 km from
- 11 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
the Arabbithittu Wildlife Range, 4 km from the Kallabetta Forest
area, and 1.5 km from the Muthurayanahosalli Forest; and that
since there was no wildlife sanctuary or national park within 10 km
of the 4-acre land in Survey No.23, there was no objection from the
Forest Division for granting permission for stone quarrying in the
said area.
15. The matter was placed before the District Task Force (Mines)
Committee, held under the chairmanship of the Deputy
Commissioner, Mysore District, on 07.08.2012. The Committee
accorded its approval for the sanction of the stone quarry lease.
16. Pursuant to the above, a notification was issued on
06.12.2012, as per Rules 11(5), 27 and 33(2) of the KMMC Rules,
sanctioning QL 549 in favour of the petitioner for building stone
quarrying in 4 acres of land in Survey No.23, Athiguppe Village,
Hunsur Taluk, for a period of 5 years with effect from 29.01.2013.
The Environmental Clearance was issued by the State Level
Environmental Impact Assessment Authority (Karnataka) on
26.03.2015. The quarrying lease deed was registered before the
Sub-Registrar, Hunsur on 09.06.2020.
- 12 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
17. It is relevant to note that a second application was also made
by the petitioner for a quarry lease in 3 acres 20 guntas of land in
the same Survey No.23, Athiguppe Village. Pursuant to the said
application, QL 554 was sanctioned, in favour of the petitioner, for
a period of 5 years with effect from 06.11.2015. An Environmental
Clearance was issued by the State Level Environmental Impact
Assessment Authority (Karnataka) on 09.09.2015. The lease deed
was registered before the Sub-Registrar, Hunsur on 25.04.2023.
18. By letter dated 14.12.2017, Respondent No.1 (Department of
Mines and Geology) intimated the petitioner that, in view of legal
developments, the petitioner may, if interested, apply for extension
of the tenure of his lease. Pursuant to the amended KMMC Rules,
QL 549 was subsequently deemed to be extended for a period of
20 years from the date of sanction (that is, up to 28.01.2033). This
was implemented on 18.05.2020. Similarly, on 26.04.2022, QL 554
was extended for 30 years from the date of sanction (that is, up to
05.11.2045).
19. Thereafter, the RTC entries pertaining to Survey No.23 of
Athiguppe Village were changed. The record indicates that from
2010 to 2021, the RTC entries consistently recorded the subject
lands as Government land with no crop information. However, by
- 13 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
an order dated 27.04.2022 (No. RRT(H) 01/2022-23), the Assistant
Commissioner, Hunsur Sub-Division, directed that an entry be
made in Column No.11 of the Pahani of Survey No.23 as
‘pariharatmaka nadithopu aranya pradesha’ or 'Compensatory
Afforestation Forest Area'. This was pursuant to a chain of
correspondence initiated by the Range Forest Officer, Hunsur
Range, to the Tahsildar, Hunsur Taluk (letter dated 07.07.2021)
and a subsequent report by the Tahsildar (letter dated 29.03.2022).
The mutation was approved and effected on 09.05.2022, recording
29.02 acres in Survey No.23 as compensatory afforestation area.
20. The petitioner contends that this reclassification was effected
without notice to him, in violation of Section 129 of the Karnataka
Land Revenue Act, 1964, and without affording him any opportunity
of being heard.
21. On 16.09.2023, officers of the Forest Department, the
Revenue Department, and the Department of Mines and Geology
jointly visited Athiguppe Village for the purpose of conducting a
spot inspection in connection with an application submitted by third
parties — namely, KNR Construction Ltd and Ramalingama
Construction Corporation Ltd — for the establishment of a crusher
unit. It appears that during the said visit, the officers also inspected
- 14 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
the petitioner's quarry operations in Survey Nos.22 and 23 of
Athiguppe Village. The petitioner states that the officers of the
Forest Department, including the DCF (Deputy Conservator of
Forests), informed his staff that Survey Nos.22 and 23 fell within
the Reserved Forest area as per the notification of 1900, and
directed the stoppage of quarrying activities. It is stated that no
formal notice was issued to the petitioner from the Forest
Department at that stage.
22. Subsequently, the DCF, by letters bearing No.
A9/Bhoomi/Stone Quarry/CR-3/2023-24 dated 03.10.2023 and
20.10.2023, addressed to the Senior Geologist, Department of
Mines and Geology, stated that the lease area sanctioned in
Survey No.23 of Athiguppe Village fell within the limits of Kallabetta
State Forest Area Block-01, which was a State Forest area as per
the Government Notification dated 04.08.1900; and requested the
Department of Mines and Geology to cancel the stone quarry
leases sanctioned to the petitioner and one Sri Krishnegowda in
Survey Nos.22 and 23 of Athiguppe Village.
23. Respondent No.1 issued a show cause notice dated
16.11.2023, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the
stone quarry licences issued to him should not be cancelled in light
- 15 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
of the Forest Department's communication. The petitioner, by
letters dated 27.11.2023, 08.12.2023, and 12.12.2023, sought time
to submit his explanation and requested that the documents relied
upon in the show cause notice be furnished to him to enable him to
file a comprehensive reply. Thereafter, by a detailed reply dated
21.12.2023 (addressed to the Senior Geologist), the petitioner
contended that the area in Survey Nos.22 and 23 of Athiguppe
Village was C and D category land; that No Objection Certificates
had been received from both the Revenue and Forest Departments
at the time of the original sanction; and that it would be illegal to
cancel the stone quarry leases sanctioned in the said survey
numbers.
24. The matter was placed before the District Task Force
Committee meeting held on 31.01.2024, chaired by the Deputy
Commissioner, Mysore District. It is recorded that in the said
meeting, it was decided that if the No Objection Certificates
previously issued by the Forest Department in respect of the said
stone quarry leases were withdrawn, the said quarry leases could
be rejected.
25. Thereafter, the DCF, by a letter dated 19.02.2024, addressed
to the Senior Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology, to
- 16 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
withdraw the No Objection Certificate that had been issued on
04.09.2012 for stone quarrying in Survey Nos.22 and 23 of
Athiguppe Village. The said letter stated, inter alia , that:
(i) as per the Government Notification dated
04.08.1900, 180 acres in Survey No.07 (old) of
Athiguppe Village was notified as Kallabetta Block-
01 State Forest;
(ii) as per Government Order dated 01.08.1964, C
and D area in Survey No.23 was transferred to the
Forest Department;
(iii) the Central Government Order dated
13.09.1983 and the State Proceedings dated
07.01.1984 directed compensatory afforestation in
C and D class land;
(iv) Survey Nos.22 and 23 are C and D category
lands already transferred from the Revenue
Department to the Forest Department, with the
Action Plan Register of Hunsur Division recording
that the Social Forestry Division had raised
afforestation;
(v) the NOC for quarrying was being withdrawn as
the quarrying was being conducted in the
computerised (mutated) area; and
(vi) prior approval of the Central Government was
required for any non-forest use, relying on the
decision of the Supreme Court in T.N.
Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and
Others [W.P.(C) No.202/1995 and W.P.(C)
No.171/1996, decided on 12.12.1996].
26. By a subsequent letter dated 15.03.2024, the DCF confirmed
the withdrawal of the NOC in substantially similar terms.
- 17 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
27. On 20.03.2024, Respondent No.1 issued stoppage notices,
directing the petitioner to stop quarrying operations in both the
lease areas — QL 549 (4 acres) and QL 554 (3 acres 20 guntas)
— in Survey No.23, Athiguppe Village.
28. Aggrieved by the said stoppage notices, the petitioner filed
writ petitions, W.P.No.15865 of 2024 (in respect of QL 549) and
W.P.No.15692 of 2024 (in respect of QL 554) before this Court,
challenging the stoppage notices dated 20.03.2024 and seeking,
inter alia , the resumption of quarrying operations.
29. The aforementioned petition, W.P.No.15865/2024, was
heard and disposed of by a co-ordinate bench of this court by an
1
order dated 11.11.2024 . The Court observed that two grounds
were indicated in the stoppage notice: first, that as per the
Government Notification dated 04.08.1900, 180 acres in Survey
No.7 and C and D area in Survey No.23 in Athiguppe Village were
handed over to the Forest Department as per the Government
Order dated 01.08.1964; and second, that Survey Nos.22 and 23
are C and D category lands already transferred from the Revenue
Department to the Forest Department, with the Revenue
1
NC:2024:KHC:45531-DB
- 18 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
Department having computerised certain areas in the revenue
records.
30. The Court further observed:
"5. There would be no gainsaying in that case of
the petitioner that the quarry lease area would not
fall under the demarcated forest is an issue to be
investigated and searched on the basis of the
facts and the factual inquiry. This Court would not
venture into it."
31. The Court found that there was a clear breach of the
principles of natural justice inasmuch as the petitioner had not been
supplied the complete material relied upon by the authorities and
had not been given an opportunity of being heard. The Court,
accordingly, set aside the stoppage notice dated 20.03.2024 and
remanded the matter to Respondent No.1 (the Senior Geologist,
Department of Mines and Geology, Mysuru) to decide the case
afresh, after supplying all the relevant documents to the petitioner
and affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The Court
directed that the entire exercise be completed within two weeks
from the date of receipt of the order.
- 19 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
2
32. The petition, W.P.No.15692 of 2024 (in respect of QL 554)
was disposed of by the order dated 15.11.2024 by the same
Division Bench, in materially similar terms.
33. It is relevant to note that in both the aforesaid orders, this
Court expressly clarified that it had not gone into the merits of the
case nor expressed any opinion on the merits of either side, and
that the setting aside of the stoppage notice was only on the
ground of breach of natural justice.
34. Subsequent to the order dated 11.11.2024 passed in
W.P.No.15865 of 2024, the petitioner, by letters dated 14.11.2024,
addressed to Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 (with copy to the Deputy
Commissioner, Mysore District, i.e. Respondent No.4), furnished
copies of the said order and sought that the matter be decided
afresh in the presence and with the involvement of all the
respondents — in particular, the Forest Department (Respondent
No.2), the Revenue Department (Respondent No.3) and the
Deputy Commissioner (Respondent No.4) — on the ground that
they were essential and necessary parties to the effective and
comprehensive resolution of the dispute. By a letter dated
2
NC: 2024:KHC:48221-DB
- 20 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
15.11.2024, addressed to Respondent No.2, and a letter dated
15.11.2024 addressed to Respondent No.3, the petitioner
reiterated his request for the involvement of the Forest and
Revenue Departments.
35. Respondent No.1, by a letter dated 14.11.2024, called the
petitioner for a personal hearing on 20.11.2024. Prior to the said
hearing, the petitioner sent a letter dated 20.11.2024, once again
making a representation to Respondent No.1 seeking the
involvement of Respondents Nos. 2 to 4 in the hearing. This
request was not acceded to.
36. On 20.11.2024, the personal hearing was conducted by the
Senior Geologist, Department of Mines and Geology, Mysore, at
11:30 AM. It is material to note that the hearing was conducted
solely by Respondent No.1; Respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 were not
present at or involved in the hearing. The minutes of the
proceedings dated 20.11.2024 recorded the petitioner's
contentions including the following:
" (i) that the Kallabetta Block-I State Forest area
had been released for agricultural and cultivation
purposes as per the Government Order dated
17.06.1949;
(ii) that the C and D category lands had been
transferred back from the Forest Department to
- 21 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
the Revenue Department as per the Government
Order No. RD 106 LGP 88 dated 03.01.1991 and
17.09.1991;
(iii) that the compensatory afforestation was to be
raised in C and D class land in Muthurayanabetta,
Hunsur Taluk, not in Survey No.23;
(iv) that the entry in the RTC recording Survey
No.23 as compensatory afforestation area was
erroneous and wrongly computerised;
(v) that the NOC issued by the DCF on 04.09.2012
was correctly issued; and
(vi) that the Report given by the State-level and
District-level Committee in respect of the Joint
Spot Inspection about Deemed Forest noted that
the Forest Department had not issued any
objection or notice to stop quarrying activities in
the area granted under Survey No.23.
(vii) that the letters written by the Deputy
Conservator of Forests, Hunsur Division, from
15.10.2019 onwards seeking mutation of 25
hectares in Sy.No.23 were fabricated."
37. On 30.11.2024, Respondent No.1 passed the first impugned
order, stopping the quarrying operations under QL 549 in respect of
4 acres of land in Survey No.23, Athiguppe Village, Hunsur Taluk,
Mysore District. The operative portion of the said order records that
since the DCF had withdrawn the No Objection Certificate by letter
dated 15.03.2024, and since, as per Rule 8(5)(iii) of the KMMC
Rules (as amended), a No Objection Certificate from the Forest
Department is a prerequisite for the grant of any stone quarry
lease, the condition under Sub-Rule 5(iii) of Rule 8 of the KMMC
- 22 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
Rules was no longer satisfied, and the quarrying operations were
accordingly ordered to be stopped.
38. In the meantime, parallel proceedings with respect to QL 554
(the subject matter of W.P.No.35424 of 2024) were conducted.
Following the order dated 15.11.2024 passed by this Court in
W.P.No.15692 of 2024, the petitioner, by letters dated 02.12.2024,
addressed to Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 sought the involvement
of all the respondents in the de novo consideration of the matter.
39. Respondent No.1 issued a letter dated 02.12.2024 calling the
petitioner for a personal hearing on 05.12.2024.
40. On 05.12.2024, the hearing was afforded to the petitioner by
respondent No.1; respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 were not present or
involved. The minutes of the proceedings dated 05.12.2024 record
the petitioner's contentions in materially identical terms as in the
earlier hearing.
41. On the same day, that is on 05.12.2024, respondent No.1
passed the second impugned order stopping the quarrying
operations under QL 554 in respect of 3 acres 20 guntas of land in
Survey No.23, Athiguppe Village, Hunsur Taluk, Mysore District.
The reasoning and the operative portion of this order are
- 23 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
substantially identical to the first impugned order — the stoppage is
predicated upon the withdrawal of the Forest Department's NOC by
letter dated 15.03.2024, and the consequent non-compliance with
Rule 8(5)(iii) of the KMMC Rules.
42. Aggrieved by the first and second impugned orders, the
petitioner filed the present writ petitions, W.P.No.35420 of 2024
and W.P.No.35424 of 2024, on 26.12.2024.
REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS
43. The dispute essentially centers around two questions. First,
whether respondent No.1 has the power to direct the stopping of
quarrying operations and second, whether the subject lands falling
in Survey No. 23 are vested with the Forest Department.
44. The Karnataka Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994
[ KMMC Rules ] do not confer any specific power on respondent
No.1 or any other authority to interdict quarrying operations, which
are being conducted in accordance with the Rules.
45. Under the proviso to Sub-rule (3) of Rule 6 of the KMMC
Rules, the Competent Authority is empowered to determine a lease
or licence prematurely, in the event the lessee or licensee fails to
pay the requisite fine for failing to remedy any breach of the
- 24 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
conditions specified in the KMMC Rules or in the quarrying lease
deed or licence. The said Sub-rule is set out below:
"(3). In case of breach by the lessee or licensee or
his transferee or assignees of any of the
conditions specified in these rules or in the
quarrying lease deed or licence, the Competent
Authority shall require by notice in writing the
lessee or licensee to remedy the breach within
thirty days from the date of notice and if the
breach is not remedied within such period the
Competent Authority may levy a fine of rupees
twenty-five thousand in the case of non-specified
minor minerals and rupees fifty thousand in case
of specified minor minerals.
Provided that, if lessee or licensee fails to pay the
fine as mentioned above, the Competent Authority
shall determine the lease or license after providing
an opportunity of being heard."
46. The impugned orders was rendered on the ground that the
Forest Department had withdrawn its NOC for the grant of the
mining lease. However, the NOC from the Forest Department is
required prior to the grant of the mining lease. There is no provision
for the Forest Department to withdraw its NOC after the mining
lease has been granted. This does not estop the State from
interfering with the illegality underlying the Grant of lease itself if
the subject land is found to be forest land.
47. In the present case, the mining leases in question (QL 549 &
QL 554) were granted on 06.12.2012 with effect from 29.01.2013
- 25 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
and 06.11.2015 for a period of five years with effect from
06.11.2015 respectively. Thereafter, the mining leases were
executed and registered with the Sub-Registrar. The term of the QL
549 was extended for a period of 20 years from the date of the
grant, that is, up to 28.01.2033, and the QL 554 was extended for a
period of 30 years from the date of the sanction, that is, till
05.11.2045.
48. In view of the above, the action interdicting quarrying lease
operations after they had been in operation for more than a decade
is extraordinary, to say the least. However, the order is premised
on the basis that the Forest Department’s NOC was granted
erroneously, and mining activity was impermissible on the said
land. Plainly, if it is found that the subject land granted is a forest
land and the same could not have been diverted for carrying on
quarrying activity, such activities would have to be interdicted.
49. It is apparent that the impugned orders have been passed on
the ground that the Forest Department had wrongfully issued the
NOC and that the grant of mining lease in the given facts was
wrongful. Concededly, the mining lease for the forest land could not
have been granted. Such a lease cannot be considered as
permissible under Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the KMMC Rules, which
- 26 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
prohibits the grant of any quarry lease or licence, otherwise than in
accordance with the said Rules.
50. As noted above, concededly, no quarrying operations are
permitted in a forest without the permission of the Central
Government under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 [ FC Act ].
Thus, no forest land could be diverted for quarrying purposes. If the
respondents are correct in their submission that the subject land
vested with the Forest Department, it was not permissible to divert
it for mining purposes without the requisite permissions and
approvals from the Central Government. In the present case,
neither any such permission was sought nor any such permission
was granted.
51. The respondents' case is that respondent No.2 (Deputy
Conservator of Forests) had given the NOC on the basis of the
land records with the revenue authorities. However, in the course
of digitising the said records, it was revealed that the subject lands
were vested with the Forest Department. The respondents claimed
that there was a mismatch in the manual RTC records and the
records available with the Forest Department.
- 27 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
52. In the given facts, we are unable to accept that the mining
leases can be permitted to subsist notwithstanding that they were
in respect of forest lands, which had been diverted without the
requisite permissions under the FC Act. The very grant of such a
lease would be without necessary authority, and thus, the petitioner
would not be entitled to claim any right to carry on mining activity in
respect of such a lease. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner
that the respondents are now estopped from questioning the lease,
having once granted it to him in accordance with the procedure
prescribed under the KMMC Rules. However, we are unable to
accept the said contention. If the leases in question were granted
on an erroneous premise that the lands in question were revenue
lands, the grant of the mining lease was without the necessary
approvals. Thus, it would not be open for the petitioner to claim
mining rights on the basis of the said mining leases.
53. The principal question to be considered is whether, in fact,
the subject lands vested with the Forest Department. The
respondents had referred to the notification dated 04.08.1900,
whereby an area of 180 acres falling in old Survey No.07 of
Athiguppe Village was identified as Kallabetta Block-01 State
Forest, the old Survey No. 07 was subsequently subdivided,
- 28 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
including Survey Nos. 22 and 23. It is undisputed that historically
the subject lands were part of the land comprising the Kallabetta
Forest.
54. The petitioner submits that by the Government notification
dated 17.06.1949, 470 acres (190.202 hectares in Kallabetta
Block-01) was released for the purpose of cultivation and the same
is also mentioned in the 'Working Plan of Hunsur Forest Division
2011-2012 to 2020-2021'. The respondents claim that, although
they had mentioned the notification dated 04.08.1900 only to
provide a historical and administrative background, they do not rely
exclusively on that notification to assert that the subject lands are
forest lands. It is explicitly averred in the statement of objections
that it is their case that the subject lands are covered under the
provision of the FC Act on account of their transfer and control by
the Forest Department and their utilisation or retention for
afforestation purposes. They claim that although 470 acres of land
were released from Kallabetta Forest Block-01 for cultivation, this
did not automatically extinguish the land’s character as a forest.
The available working plan indicates the extent of land released for
specific purposes.
- 29 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
55. In our view, the historical background of the subject land is
relevant and cannot be disregarded. There is no dispute that 470
acres of land of Kallabetta Forest Block-01 were released for
cultivation by the Government Order dated 17.06.1949. However, it
is also not disputed that the said lands were not brought under
cultivation. Even according to the petitioner, the said lands
remained barren lands. The respondents state that the working
plan of the Hunsur Forest Division for 2011-2012 and 2020-2021,
specified the extent of land, which was released for specific
purposes. However, as stated above, the State Authorities do not
assert that the subject land is a part of the forest lands on the
strength of the notification dated 04.08.1900.
56. Admittedly, the lands falling in Survey No.23, were classified
as C and D category lands Revenue Lands and were transferred to
the Forest Department on 30.11.1978 as per the Government
Order dated 08.05.1978. It is important to note that a copy of the
relevant record has been produced, indicating that 40 acres falling
in Survey No. 22; 29 acres and 2 guntas falling in Survey No.23;
and 100 acres falling in Survey No.81, were transferred to the
Forest Department.
- 30 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
57. The petitioner, however, claims that the said lands, which
came to be vested with the forest department, did not form a part of
the reserve forest and therefore, were re-transferred to the
Revenue authorities in terms of the circular dated 17.09.1991.
58. The said circular has not been produced in these
proceedings. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner
referred to the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
3
K. Manjunath v. State of Karnataka and others and drew the
attention of this Court to paragraph 12 of the said decision, which
reads as under:
"12. As per Notification dated 4th March, 1982 an
extent of 18 lakh acres of 'C' and 'D' class lands
were transferred to forest department for
afforestation/social forestly purpose. The forest
department developed portion of land and notified
an extent of 1,67,500 acres (67,000 hectares)
only. Subsequently, the State Government vide
order dated 3rd January, 1991 ordered for
retransfer of 'C' and 'D' class lands from forest
department to revenue department with exception
of lands already notified as reserved forest area by
the forest department. The State Government
issued a circular dated 17th September, 1991
clarifying the status of 'C' and 'D' class lands as on
3rd January, 1991 stands resumed/vested in the
Revenue Department. The petitioner has
produced the copy of Record of Rights for the year
2018-19, which discloses that Sy. No. 185 is a
gomal land. The respondents have not disputed
the Notification dated 3rd January, 1991 and
Circular dated 17th September, 1991."
3
(2020) SCC Online KAR 2775
- 31 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
59. Mr. Rakshith B.V.M, the learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that the subject lands were not notified as a reserved
forest and therefore, notwithstanding that they had been earlier
transferred to the Forest Department, they were resumed by the
Revenue Department.
60. The respondents' case is that the lands in question were
brought under the administrative control of the forest department.
They were so recorded in the records maintained by the Forest
Department and utilised and retained for afforestation-related
activities. Thus, the said lands could not be diverted. Plainly, the
circular mentioned in K. Manjunath v. State of Karnataka and
others ( supra ) will not be applicable if the lands in question have
been utilized for afforestation.
61. At this stage, it would be relevant to refer to the decision of
the Supreme Court in T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of
4
India and others whereby, the Court accepted the expansive
definition of Forest. We consider it relevant to refer to the following
observations from the said decision.
4
(1997) 2 SCC 267
- 32 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
"4. The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was
enacted with a view to check further deforestation
which ultimately results in ecological imbalance;
and therefore, the provisions made therein for the
conservation of forests and for matters connected
therewith, must apply to all forests irrespective of
the nature of ownership or classification thereof.
The word “forest” must be understood according to
its dictionary meaning. This description covers all
statutorily recognized forests, whether designated
as reserved, protected or otherwise for the
purpose of Section 2(i) of the Forest Conservation
Act. The term “forest land” occurring in Section 2,
will not only include “forest” as understood in the
dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as
forest in the Government record irrespective of the
ownership. This is how it has to be understood for
the purpose of Section 2 of the Act. The provisions
enacted in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for
the conservation of forests and the matters
connected therewith must apply clearly to all
forests so understood irrespective of the
ownership or classification thereof. This aspect
has been made abundantly clear in the decisions
of this Court in Ambica Quarry works vs State of
Gujarat, Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra
vs State of U.P. and recently in the order
dated:29.11.1996 (Supreme Court Monitoring
Committee v. Mussoorie Dehradun Development
Authority). The earlier decision of this Court in
State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi has, therefore,
to be understood in the light of these subsequent
decisions. We consider it necessary to reiterate
this settled position emerging from the decisions of
this Court to dispel the doubt, if any, in the
perception of any State Government or authority.
This has become necessary also because of the
stand taken on behalf of the State of Rajasthan,
even at this late stage, relating to permissions
granted for mining in such area which is clearly
contrary to the decisions of this Court. It is
reasonable to assume that any State Government
which has failed to appreciate the correct position
in law so far, will forthwith correct its stance and
take the necessary remedial measures without
any further delay.
- 33 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
5. We further direct as under:
I.General
In view of the meaning of the word “forest” in the
Act, it is obvious that prior approval of the Central
Government is required for any non-forest activity
within the area of any “forest”. In accordance with
Section 2 of the Act, all on-going activity within any
forest in any State throughout the country, without
the prior approval of the Central Government,
must cease forthwith…………”
[emphasis added]
62. In view of the aforesaid authoritative decision, it is not
necessary that the lands be notified as a part of the reserve forest
for the same to fall within the ambit of the FC Act. If the
respondents are correct in their submission that the subject lands
have been retained for afforestation purposes, the said lands could
not be considered as resumed by the Revenue authorities. In this
regard, there is material on record to indicate that the land was
used for forestry purposes.
63. Whilst the petitioner claims that the subject land was used for
social forestry in 1988, the respondents claim that it was used for
afforestation as a compensatory measure for the release of certain
lands for irrigation purposes.
64. The petitioner argues that the lands falling within Survey No.
23 cannot be considered forest land, as the afforestation had failed.
We find this contention difficult to accept. Even if the afforestation
- 34 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
efforts had failed at one stage, it would not change the nature of
the lands. It is also erroneous to assume that once an afforestation
effort fails, it cannot be undertaken again. The petitioner referred to
an extract of the document which clearly indicates that afforestation
activity was undertaken in the year 1988 but, it had failed. The
annual working plan for 1988 -1989 indicates that advance work for
compensatory afforestation on 12 hectares at Athiguppe was
carried out. Whilst the petitioner disputes that this area comprised
Sy No. 23, the respondents claim otherwise.
65. The narration of facts as set out above also indicates that
there is no dispute that contemporaneously, the compensatory
afforestation activities were carried out pursuant to the release of
46.70 hectares of forest land for the construction of the Ingalagere
Tank by the Public Works Department [ PWD ] near Bylakuppa.
66. The letter dated 13.09.1983 issued by the Government of
India has been placed on record. The said letter indicates that the
Government had examined the proposal for the release of 46.70
hectares of forest land and granted the clearance under Section 2
of the FC Act for use of the said land for non-forest purposes,
subject to certain conditions. The same included a condition that
the Revenue Department would hand over 211 acres of land to the
- 35 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
State Forest Department for compensatory plantation/afforestation
at the cost of the PWD. The said condition was accepted, and the
State Government issued the Government Order dated
07.01.1984, directing that the Revenue Department release 211
acres (85.39 hectares) of C & D lands to the Forest Department for
raising compensatory plantation. Subsequent communication dated
18.11.1987, addressed by the Deputy Conservator of Forests to
the Conservator of Forests, Kodagu Circle, Madikeri, indicates that
the C & D lands in Muthurayana Betta in Hunsur Taluk were
selected for compensatory afforestation. The letter mentions that
the land, to the extent of 25 hectares, would be planted in the next
year, 1988.
67. There is a dispute over whether the afforestation activity was
confined to Muthurayana Betta (Survey No. 81) or also carried out
in Survey No. 23 of Athiguppe Village.
68. The respondents referred to the letter dated 30.06.1988,
which records that advance work of compensatory afforestation
was undertaken in a 12-hectare area in Athiguppe Village in the
year 1987-1988. The work includes planting saplings over 12
hectares and constructing a 3.7 km cattle proof trench for the rainy
season. The respondents insist that the 12 hectares of plantation
- 36 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
work refers to the plantation carried out in Survey No. 23 of
Athiguppe Village, and, as stated above, the petitioner disputes the
same. They claim that the afforestation activity was carried out in
Survey No.81 and not in Survey No.23.
69. There is extensive material on record indicating that
compensatory afforestation had been carried out in Survey No. 81.
However, the principal dispute is whether the lands falling in
Survey Nos. 22 and 23 were excluded. The respondents state that
the letter dated 18.11.1987, which referred to compensatory
afforestation in Muthurayana Betta, pertained to one phase and
cannot be considered as exhaustive of the afforestation-related
activities that were undertaken at the material time. They state that
their working plans, plantation records and files reflect that
advanced afforestation work carried out in an area of 12 hectares
at Athiguppe Village, which includes the lands falling in Survey
No.23.
70. As noted above, the fact that afforestation activities were
undertaken on the subject lands (survey no. 23) in the year 1988 is
not disputed. According to the petitioner, however, the same had
failed.
- 37 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
71. We may also note that communications dated 27.08.1999,
31.08.1999 and 15.02.2017 reflect that afforestation activities were
carried out in Survey No. 23 to the extent of 25 hectares. The
same is also the subject matter of dispute as the extent of land
comprising in Survey No.23 is only 29.02 acres (approximately 12
hectares). Thus, the petitioner states that the said communications
must be disregarded and the reference to afforestation activities
falling in Survey No.23 is erroneous. However, merely because the
extent of land mentioned is erroneous, the communications cannot
be disregarded in entirety.
72. As noted herein before, the fact that certain lands, including
lands falling in Survey Nos. 22 and 23, had been handed over to
the Forest Department in the year 1978 is of significance. The
petitioner's case predominantly rests on the submission that there
is no document or record which indicates that the lands falling in
Survey Nos. 22 and 23 were released by the Revenue Department
to the Forest Department as a part of 211 acres of land which were
required for compensatory afforestation in lieu of the release of
46.70 hectares of land for the Ingalagere Tank project. However,
considering that the C&D lands were already with the Forest
Department during the material period, the lack of any order
- 38 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
specifically mentioning that the lands in Survey No. 23 were being
released for compensatory afforestation in lieu of the 46.70
hectares released for the Ingalagere Tank project, would not be
dispositive of the present petition. The records produced do
support the contention that some afforestation activity had been
carried out and at the material time the subject lands falling in
Survey Nos.22 and 23 were vested with the Forest Department.
73. We are unable to accept that the subject lands are not part of
the lands vested with the Forest Department for compensatory
afforestation.
74. During the pendency of the present writ petitions, pursuant to
directions issued by the learned Advocate General by letter dated
17.02.2023, an Enquiry Committee was constituted under the
chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner, Mysore District,
comprising the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Hunsur Division
(Member), the Assistant Commissioner, Hunsur Sub-Division
(Member), and the Senior Geologist, Department of Mines and
Geology, Mysore (Member Secretary), for the purpose of
conducting a fresh enquiry and submitting a report to this Court.
- 39 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
75. The Enquiry Committee met on 03.03.2025. The petitioner
was present and was heard. The Senior Geologist presented the
factual background, and the petitioner made his submissions,
contending that the area in Survey No.23 was not forest land; that
the compensatory afforestation was raised in a different area
(Muthurayanabetta); that the area had been released for cultivation
in 1949; and that the C and D class lands had been retransferred to
the Revenue Department in 1991. The DCF asked the petitioner to
produce supporting documents. The Resolution of the meeting
recorded that the Committee would take a decision after the
Deputy Conservator of Forests submitted a report examining the
statements and documents furnished by the petitioner.
76. The Deputy Conservator of Forests submitted a report dated
17.03.2025 to the Deputy Commissioner. In the said report, the
DCF traced the history of the compensatory afforestation
chronologically, recording that:
“(i) the Central Government had ordered
compensatory afforestation;
(ii) the State Government had directed its
implementation;
(iii) advance work was undertaken in 12 hectares
in 1987-88 and 25 hectares in 1988-89;
- 40 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
(iv) compensatory afforestation was grown in 12
hectares (29.02 acres) in Survey No.23 and 25
hectares in Survey No.81;
(v) the handwritten RTCs from 2011 to 2022
recorded the land as Government in Column 9 and
as forest planted sapling in Column 12;
(vi) the then DCF had issued the NOC in 2012
only on the basis of revenue records, without
examining the Forest Department records; and
(vii) the RTC was subsequently mutated in 2022 to
record the compensatory afforestation.”
77. The Enquiry Committee met again on 19.03.2025. The DCF
presented the summary of the report. The Resolution of the
meeting recorded that, as per the report of the DCF, Survey No.23
in Athiguppe Village is C and D class area; that as per the
Government Order No. RD 54 LGP 78 dated 08.05.1978, it was
transferred to the Forest Department for land bank purposes; and
that as per the Government of Karnataka Proceeding Order No.
FFD 7 FGL 81 dated 07.01.1984, compensatory afforestation had
been grown, and the said area therefore belonged to the Forest
Department.
78. The Senior Geologist, by a letter dated 20.03.2025,
forwarded the report along with the proceedings to the Advocate
General for submission to this Court. The same was subsequently
placed before this Court.
- 41 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
79. At the hearing held on 12.01.2026, this Court noted the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had referred to various
documents, which indicated that the afforestation exercise was
conducted in Survey Nos.39, 106 and 821 of Athiguppe Village,
and had produced GPS maps from the records of the respondents
showing the same. It was further noted that, with respect to Survey
No. 23, the report of the District Task Force indicated that the
afforestation was conducted in 1988-89 but failed, and that, on that
basis, the NOC for quarrying was granted. This Court observed
that since the case of the Forest Department rested on the claim
that lands falling in Survey Nos.22 and 23 had been diverted for
forest purposes, the respondents were required to produce
documents to evidence the same.
80. The respondents did not produce any further relevant
documents to establish that the lands falling in Survey No. 23 were
diverted and used for afforestation.
81. In the given facts, it is apparent that the GPS coordinates of
the land, as available on record, on which afforestation was carried
out, do not fall in Survey No. 23. However, there is sufficient
material on record to indicate that afforestation activity was carried
out on the subject land, or at least a part of it. As noted above, it is
- 42 -
WP No. 35420 of 2024
C/W WP No. 35424 of 2024
also the petitioner’s contention that afforestation activity was
carried out in 1987-88 but failed. We agree with the Forest
Department’s contention that afforestation may be carried out in
stages, and that failure of afforestation in a particular year does not
release the forest land.
82. Before concluding, we must appreciate the assistance
rendered by Sri Rakshith B.V.M, the learned counsel for the
Petitioner. However, we are not persuaded to accept his
contentions.
83. In view of the above, we are unable to accept that any
interference with the impugned orders is warranted in these
proceedings.
84. The petitions are accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(VIBHU BAKHRU)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(C.M. POONACHA)
JUDGE
KPS