Revenue authorities lack jurisdiction to conduct phodi over land notified as forest.

The petitioner claimed to hold a 40-year lease over the subject land under a lease deed dated 3 September 1993.

The State had transferred the land in Sy. Nos. 171, 158 and 157 to the Forest Department, and a notification dated 10 June 1994 had been issued under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, concerning the land

Respondent No. 1, who held a grant certificate dated 9 December 1952 containing a condition requiring release of the land to the Government when directed, obtained phodi and durasti work reflected in mutation entries dated 31 July/26 August 2008.

The petitioner challenged that work and the subsequent appellate and revisional orders

The Court had earlier remitted a related matter to the authorities, while other proceedings concerning respondent No. 1’s claim had directed her to pursue available remedies, including before the civil court

1. Whether the revenue authorities could conduct phodi and durasti and make corresponding revenue entries in respect of land treated as forest land and transferred to the Forest Department.

2. Whether the impugned phodi, mutation, appellate and revisional orders should be quashed in light of the forest notification and the condition in respondent No. 1’s grant certificate.

The Court relied on Section 4 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, and treated the notification concerning the land as establishing its forest status and vesting it with the Forest Department.

It applied the principle stated in State of Karnataka v. I.S. Nirvane Gowda, (2007) 15 SCC 744, that revenue entries and saguvali chits do not confer title to land forming part of a reserved forest, and that revenue authorities are not competent to deal with such forest property.

The Court also referred to T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad, In Re v. Union of India, (2025) 2 SCC 641, and related Supreme Court orders.

The grant certificate’s condition required respondent No. 1 to release the land to the Government when directed.

The Court accepted the petitioner’s claim that the land was subject to its lease and noted the State’s transfer of the land to the Forest Department and the Section 4 notification.

It considered the grant certificate’s release condition alongside the forest notification and concluded that the revenue authorities had wrongly conducted phodi and durasti over land treated as forest land.

Relying on I.S. Nirvane Gowda, the Court held that revenue authorities lacked jurisdiction to make orders concerning land belonging to the Forest Department; the impugned proceedings therefore could not stand.

It directed the Tahsildar to enter the Forest Department’s name in the revenue records for the subject land forthwith.