The Dy. Commissioner and Another Vs. Gidda and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
mr. vikramajit sen; a.s. bopanna, jj.] constitution of india - articles 226, 227 -- power of high courts to issue certain writs -- a1 dated 25.11.1993. 92 dated 30.09.93. anx.a3 dated 28.10.93. a4 dated 14.09.93. a5 dated 17.02.94. 27044/01, 36434-36452/01, 39542/01 be entered as forest land in the revenue records and directed the petitioners therein to handover vacant possession to the forest department. the said reserve forest is also declared under the notification dated 06.03.1928. the lands were thickly wooded forests surrounding the temple. in that background, though the lands in fact did not belong to the government by ownership, they were inam forest lands belonging to the temple. just because some trees are grown naturally in a coffee land and just because there will be lot of trees in a coffee land does not mean that it ceases to be a coffee land and it becomes a forest land. in fact, this temple was getting revenue from coffee lands, dry lands, gomal lands, forest lands and other types of lands including from sandalwood. annexure-‘b’ also indicates that apart from some forest lands, the temple owned other lands also, which are agricultural and plantation lands. in that direction, the entire sequence would clearly establish that the lands which are subject matter of the notification dated 06.03.1928 were inam forest lands. 1963 coming into force, it would be reserved forest, the vesting in the government in any event would be as forest land. there is nothing to suggest that inam land cannot be forest land. in fact section 3(b) provides for vesting of cultivated lands as well as forests and section 7 and 8 excludes grant of forest lands after it has vested in the state government.(prayer: this writ petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution of india, with a prayer to quash vide anx. a1 dated 25.11.1993. anx. 92 dated 30.09.93. anx.a3 dated 28.10.93. anx. a4 dated 14.09.93. anx. a5 dated 17.02.94. anx.a6 dated 25.11.93 and anx.97 dated 19.07.89 passed by r4 and r5 and direct the r1 to hold an enquiry into the matter and take such other action in accordance with law.)1. the writ petition in w.p.no.9573/1999 is filed by the petitioners claiming to be residents of balehole, chickmangalur district. the grant made by respondent nos.4 and 5 viz., the land tribunal and the land reforms appellate authority respectively in favour of respondent nos.7 to 18 under the karnataka (religious and charitable) inams abolition act, 1955 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the krcia act’ for short] is called in question.2. the petitioners contend that the lands in question which were claimed by respondent nos.7 to 18 as occupants for the purpose of grant on abolition of inams did not continue to be inam lands as on the date of the coming into force of the krcia act. according to the petitioners, the land in question earlier belonged to sri kalasheshwara swamy temple, kalasa, mudigere taluk, chickmangalur district. out of the total extent of 14357 acres, more than 10000 acres of land are thick forest land consisting of valuable trees and they are notified as ‘reserved forest’. it is their contention that except for the remaining extent of 4109 acres which remained to be inam land wherein the grants could be made, the grant in the other extent which are forest land is not valid. it is in that context, contended that the forest lands are to be preserved by quashing the illegal orders of grant made in favour of respondent nos.7 to 18. the private respondents have no doubt opposed the petition and have contended that the lands remained to be the inam lands and after consideration of material, the grants have been made in their favour which according to them is valid.3. in the background of the above petition, the deputy commissioner, chickmagalur district had passed certain orders directing that the lands which were the subject matter in writ petition nos.26882-26883/2001 connected with w.p.nos. 26570-26575/2001, 26459/01, 26568/01, 26183/01, 24742-24743/01, 26608/01, 26494-26495/01. 27044/01, 36434-36452/01, 39542/01 be entered as forest land in the revenue records and directed the petitioners therein to handover vacant possession to the forest department. that led to the proceedings before the learned single judge. the reason for doing so was that according to the official respondents, the lands in question formed part of the land included in the notification dated 06.03.1928 issued under the mysore forest regulation declaring the same as ‘reserved forest’. some of the petitioners therein had challenged the order of the deputy commissioner, while few had challenged the show cause notices and the others challenged the notification dated 06.03.1928 itself. the learned single judge though did not find it necessary to quash the notification dated 06.03.1928, has held the lands in question to be inam lands endowed to the deity. in that view, the learned single judge allowed certain of the writ petitions and quashed the order passed by the deputy commissioner. in the other writ petitions, where notices had been issued by the deputy commissioner, the learned single judge rejected the writ petition and permitted the petitioners therein to file their reply. the deputy commissioner and the state of karnataka being aggrieved are in appeal in w.a.nos.1453-1464/2004.4. the petitioner in w.p.no.28612/2003 against whom the order dated 29.05.2003 was passed by the conservator of forests-cum-appellate authority, chickmagalur in forest appeal no.27/2001 affirming the order passed by the deputy conservator of forests, had assailed the same. the said orders were passed alleging that the petitioner therein had encroached 45 acres 20 guntas of mavinakere thalangad reserve forest. the said reserve forest is also declared under the notification dated 06.03.1928. the learned single judge has dismissed the writ petition by order dated 06.06.2007. the petitioner therefore has filed the appeal in wa.no.1558/2007.5. though all the said proceedings have been initiated separately on different cause of action, the issue ultimately is as to whether the lands in question in all the said proceedings are forest lands. in that regard, the notification dated 06.03.1928 would fall for consideration and as such, the above writ petition and the writ appeals are considered together.6. on behalf of the government, the notification dated 06.03.1928 bearing no.g. 10192-96-ft.267-27-5 published in part ii of the mysore gazette dated 15.03.1928 is relied to contend that the lands measuring different extents in devarabetta. karimane kalgod, mavinakere talagode, thotadur and balagi with the boundaries indicated thereto were notified as ‘reserved forest’ under the mysore forest regulation, 1900 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘regulation, 1900’). it is their case that even though the said lands were inam lands of sri kalasheshwara swamy temple, the same being muzurai temple, the proceedings would disclose that it was notified with the knowledge of the muzurai commissioner. in that regard, the proceedings dated 03.11.1924 whereby the muzurai commissioner was requested to submit the final report as regards the transfer of management of the temple’s forest lands to the forest department is referred. the order no.420-2/muz115-24-6 dated 09.10.1925 is referred to point out that the deputy commissioner, kadur district has reported that the dharmadarshis of the temple have agreed for the proposal being sanctioned without prejudice to the right to remove leaves etc for agricultural purposes. hence, it is contended that the preliminary procedures were followed and the notification dated 06.03.1928 was issued. the subsequent notification no.a.f 1800-ft-252-49-24 dated 25.10.1943 is relied on to point out that his highness the maharaja of mysore has declared the blocks of forests which were already notified as reserved forest under the notification dated 06.03.1928 and the other notifications shall be deemed to be forests taken over for management by government in the forest department. it is therefore contended that the lands in question which were already declared as ‘reserved forest’ did not remain as inam lands as on the date of coming into force of the mysore (religious and charitable) inams abolition act, 1955. as such neither the land tribunal, appellate authority or the deputy commissioner for inams abolition have jurisdiction to grant the land. hence, the action initiated against such illegal grants are sustainable in law. the contention on behalf of the petitioners in the public interest petition is also to the similar effect.7. the contention on behalf of the private respondents in w.p.no.9573/1999 as also the respondents in w.a.1453-1464/2005 and the appellant in w.a.no.1558/2007 is in similar lines as urged before the learned single judge in w.p.no.26882/01 and connected petitions. in that regard, it is contended that the notification dated 06.03.1928 is not valid inasmuch as the same is issued under section 35 (iii) of the regulations. it is further contended that the said regulation only provides for regulation of the use relating to forest produce or pasturing in the forest which belongs to the government and it does not provide for declaring the land belonging to a private individual or any other owner, other than the government as ‘reserved forest’. since admittedly the lands in question were inam lands belonging to sri kalasheshwara swamy temple, the said land owned by the deity could not have been declared under the said notification more particularly when the regulation is not applicable. in that view, the lands in question continued to remain as inam lands in the occupation and cultivation of the private parties herein as tenants. the same had therefore vested in the government on coming into force of the krcia act creating right in their favour to seek regrant/occupancy right. accordingly, on the applications being field by such persons, the tribunal/appellate authority has granted the occupancy right which is in accordance with law. the learned single judge keeping in view the fact that the land in question was inam land endowed to the deity was of the opinion that there is no need to quash the notification dated 06.03.1928 as it did not apply to inam land. the learned single judge has therefore, granted the relief to the petitioners which is justified and does not call for interference is the submission. however, insofar as wa no.1558/2007, it is contended that the learned single judge in the related writ petition had not appreciated this position more particularly when another learned single judge of this court in a similar situation had taken a different view. therefore, it is the contention that the order dated 06.06.2007 in w.p.no.28612/2003 is liable to be set aside. insofar as the writ petition, it is contended that it is not in the nature of public interest. certain political motive has instigated the petition, which is evident since only the private respondents therein are chosen to be impleaded when several persons also have been granted land in the same area.8. in the background of the above, the issue which requires of the outset is the notification dated 06.03.1928. though the said notification was called in question in few of the writ petitions before the learned single judge which forms part of the common order dated 07.08.2003 passed by the learned single judge, the learned single judge did not deem it necessary to quash the notification. the petitioners who had challenged the same have not filed any appeal. therefore, the position existing as on today is that the notification dated 06.03.1928 continues to subsist. however, the purport and scope of the notification arises for consideration so as to determine whether it has declared the status of land as ‘reserved forest’.9. the notification is issued in exercise of the power contained in section 35 (iii) of the mysore forest regulations, 1900. section 35 is contained in chapter-iv relating to district forests. the section 35 (i) to (iii) reads as hereunder:“35. subject to all rights now legally vested in individuals and communities, the government may, for any district of the forest produce or of the pasturage of any land at the disposal of government and not included in a state or village forest.such rules may amongst other things –(i) declare that certain trees shall be classed as reserved trees not to be felled without the special sanction of the conservator of forests or of an officer duly authorized by him;(ii) declare that certain trees not classed as reserved shall be granted to cultivating raiyats on favourable rates of seigniorage;(iii) provide for placing any area at the disposal of government under special protection, in view to its subsequent settlement and constitution as a state forest or for any other purpose, and prescribe the conditions and penalties attendant on such special protection;”10. the sub-section (iii) is referred by the learned counsel for the private respondents to contend that the power therein can be exercised only in respect of lands owned by the government and not in respect of any other land. the question that would therefore arise is as to whether the notification dated 06.03.1928 could have been issued in respect of lands which were not owned by the government? in order to analyse this aspect of the matter, not only the regulation concerned, but also the notification and the earlier proceedings relating thereto would have to be considered. though the regulation 1900 is referred, it is seen that the mysore forest act, 1900 passed on 16.11.1900 also contains similar provisions.11. provisions contained in chapter iv relates to district forests. section 34 provides the power to the government to grant privileges in a district forest. the district forest is defined under section 2 (xii) to include all land at the disposal of the government, not included within the limits of any state or village forest nor assigned at the survey settlement as free grazing ground or for any other public or communal purpose. the proviso therein provides that it shall be competent for the government to modify or set aside such assignment and constitute any such land a state, village or district forest or devote the same to any other purpose it may deem fit. in the instant case, the undisputed position is that the lands in question were inam lands endowed to the temple by the then ruler byravarsa of karkala. the lands were thickly wooded forests surrounding the temple. the temple is a muzurai institution which is within the control of the government but managed by the committee in accordance with law is also one of the aspects. in that background, though the lands in fact did not belong to the government by ownership, they were inam forest lands belonging to the temple. none of the private respondents herein or such of the other persons who have been granted the lands or alleged to have encroached the lands claim ownership over the lands prior to the issue of notification dated 06.03.1928. this aspect is also required to be borne in mind while considering the overall aspects since only those persons who had interest in the lands as owners could have any objection to the notification if they chose to have. if this be the position, as on 06.03.1928 when the notification was issued by his highness the maharaja of mysore, the only person/institution that could have raised any objection or have any reservations in respect of the notification is the muzurai temple or the dharmadarshi/committee which was incharge of the affairs or the management of the temple.12. in that light, if section 35 (iii) is perused, it would make it clear that, subject to the rights which had legally vested in individuals and communities as on the date of the notification by the government, it would be open for the government to make rules to regulate the use of the forest produce or of the pasturage of any land at the disposal of the government but not included in a state or village forest. hence, such notification can provide for any area at the disposal of the government to be placed under special protection in view of its subsequent settlement and constitution as a state forest or for any other purpose and prescribe the conditions and penalties attendant on such special protection. the phrase employed in sec. 35(iii) and also while defining the ‘district forest’ is “lands at the disposal of government”. in order to understand the purport of the said expression, it would be necessary to call in aid similar provisions contained in the subsequent enactment which is brought in to consolidate and amend the law relating to forests and forest produce in the state of karnataka. in that regard, a reference to the karnataka forest act, 1963 would indicate that the term ‘reserved forest’ is contained therein for the first time and chapter-ii relates to the power to constitute, notify and regulate other rights thereunder. it would be appropriate to refer to section 3 which reads as hereunder:“3. powers to constitute reserved forest – the state government may constitute any land which is the property of the government or over which the government has proprietary rights, or to the whole, or any part of the forest produce of which the government is entitled, a reserved forest in the manner hereinafter provided”.(emphasis supplied)13. in contra distinction to the above, the term ‘district forest’ defined in section 2(2) and section 33 relating to district forest in the same act uses the phrase “land at the disposal of government” while empowering the state government to regulate the use of forest produce or pasturage. therefore, what is distinct is that to declare and notify a forest as ‘reserved forest’, it should be the “property of government” or “over which the government has proprietary rights”. on the other hand to place restrictions relating to the use of forest, it should only be “at the disposal of the government” which is the same position under the earlier act as well as present one. in the instant case, though the regulation 1900 did not define or make any provision relating to ‘reserved forest’, except for reserving rights over certain varieties of trees, the notification dated 06.03.1928 refers to ‘reserved forest’. the notification should therefore be construed as the one made for providing special protection to the forest, the details of which are indicated in the notification with reference to the boundaries.14. the proper understanding of the provision would therefore make it clear that to provide protection to a existing forest, the government need not have to be the owner of the property having proprietary right as owner, but the requirement is only that, it should be available at the disposal of the government. the fact as to whether the lands in a particular case was available at the disposal of the government would depend on each case in the circumstances arising therein. if the aspect is kept in view, and as already noticed, since no other private individual is claiming ownership rights over the property in the instant case, and since the lands were forest lands being endowed to a temple which is muzurai institution, whether it was available at the disposal of the government in order to notify the same needs consideration from the facts emanating in this case.15. in this background, keeping in view that the lands were inam forest lands belonging to the ‘temple, a muzurai institution, the proceedings which had preceded the notification dated 06.03.1928 needs to be noticed. the order no.420-2/muz 115-24-6 dated 9.10.1925 refers to the earlier government order no.628-31/muz-31-24-2 dated 03.11.1924 whereunder the muzurai commissioner in mysore was requested to submit a final report among other matters as regards the improvement of forest revenue of kalasheshwara swamy temple and transfer of management of the temple forest lands to the forest department. the muzurai commissioner by his letter no.980/1922-23 dated 15.06.1925 is stated to have submitted his proposals. in that context, the order dated 09.10.1925 is passed taking note of the report that the total extent of forest lands belonging to the temple is about 11000 acres and the controlled timber revenue could be used by preventing smuggling and illicit removal of forest produce. the report of the deputy commissioner, kadur district is also referred to indicate that the dharmadarshis of the temple had agreed for the proposal being sanctioned without prejudice to the ‘mamool rights’ of the villagers to remove leaves etc for agricultural purposes. since by the said order the proposals were sanctioned, the letter no.d43388 dated 23.12.1927 was issued by the chief conservator of forests in mysore submitting the draft notifications for reservation, the notification dated 06.03.1928 was ultimately issued under section 35 (iii) of the regulations. the notification reads as hereunder:“the government of his highness the maharaja of mysore are pleased to declare under the provisions of section 35 (iii) of the mysore forest regulation xi of 1900 that the area the boundaries of which are set forth in the schedule annexed to this notification is constituted into a reserved forest.”16. the said notification thereafter contains the details of the lands with the boundaries. as noticed above, the term ‘reserved forest’ is not contained or defined in the said regulations. hence, the power exercised under section 35 (iii) is to reserve the said areas enclosed by the boundaries indicated therein for special protection. since it had been placed under special protection with the consent of the dharmadarshis, reserving only the ‘mamool rights’ of those individuals or communities which had the legally vested right as on the date of the notification (06.03.1928) they would continue to enjoy the same. the proceedings which preceded the issue of notification would lead to the conclusion that no fresh rights in respect of the said lands could have been created subsequent to the notification since the lands were placed at the disposal of the government under special protection and the intention of handing over possession to the forest department was to protect the same as a forest. hence, insofar as the notification dated 06.03.1928, it cannot be stated that it is contrary to the regulations or without competence.17. one more aspect which is relevant to be noticed is that in this backdrop, the karnataka forest act 1963 came into force on 27-02-1964. that act vide section 117 repealed all earlier enactments (though regulation 1900 is not mentioned, karnataka forest act, 1900 is mentioned) but saved all actions under such repealed law. the second proviso therein indicates that any action taken under such law shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provision of the present act and shall continue to be in force accordingly unless and until superseded by anything done under the present act. in that context, since we have earlier analysed that the property was at the disposal of the government, even if it was the land gifted to the temple. section 106 of act, 1963 becomes relevant. the same reads as hereunder.“106. management of forests which are the joint property of state government and other persons.-(1) if the state government and any person be jointly interested in any forest or wasteland, or in the whole or any part of the produce thereof, the state government may either-(a) undertake the management of such forest, wasteland produce, accounting to such person for his interest in the same; or(b) issue such regulations for the management of the forest, wasteland or produce by the person so jointly interested as it deems necessary for the management thereof and the interests of all parties therein.(2) when the state government undertakes under clause (a) of sub-section(1) the management of any forest, wasteland or produce it may, by notification, declare that any of the provisions contained in chapters ii and iv shall apply to such forest, wasteland or produce, and thereupon such provisions shall apply accordingly.”sub-section (2) to section 106 provides for chapter ii and iv to be applicable. as such in view of the earlier notification placing it under special protection for its subsequent settlement and constitution, the provisions become applicable with effect from 26.02.1964 since the earlier notification had the intention of constituting the ‘reserved forest’ and the same was done in league with the muzarai institution. the bar of accrual of forest rights as contained in section 6 of act, 1963 would also become applicable with effect from the date of that act. even otherwise, it has vested in the government with absolute right with effect from 01.07.1970.18. in that view, the question that would further arise for consideration is as to whether the claim of the private respondents herein and such other persons, who are not parties to the instant proceedings relating to the claim of occupancy right under the krcia act and grant under the karnataka land grant rules would be valid?19. insofar as the respondents in w.a.nos.1453-64/2004, it relates to the occupancy right which was made under krcia act. in that regard, the case of the petitioners in w.p. nos. 26494 and 26495/2001 is taken as an instance for consideration. the petitioners claim to be the owner of land bearing sy. no. 715/a measuring 10 acres of mavinkere village and no. 826 measuring 1 acre of talgode which is also a part of the lands in issue. though the petitioner has averred with regard to the property being inam land as noticed above, he has not averred the manner in which he came into possession except stating that he has been cultivating for more than 35 years. to support such claim, he has produced extract of rtc but the same is for the year 2000-01 and does not establish anything earlier since the only entry found therein is the mutation in mr.75/95-96 and mr.130/95-96 as also mr.104/98-99 which are based on the order passed by the land tribunal in the inam grant proceedings but does not establish anything earlier to it which is most relevant. the said order and entries were to be cancelled due to the proceedings in w.p. no. 9573/99 (pil) which is being considered herein and the petitioner was thereafter before the learned single judge. the grounds were mainly against the subsequent action by the authorities, but the earlier right justifying the grant by the tribunal had not been put forth effectively. it is similar in all the other cases with minor variations. in the case taken as an instance, the tribunal in fact had rejected the claim. the appellate tribunal no doubt referred to certain decision of the trustees to permit cultivation and the entry in the pahani for the year 1965-66 as coffee kharab and inam land. similarly several other persons have been claiming as inam land and having cultivated coffee.20. in the circumstances in which the matter was before the learned single-judge, wherein the order assailed was passed taking note of the proceedings in the public interest petition, the appropriate course to be adopted by the learned single judge should have been to direct the said petitions also to be considered along with the pil which was pending before the division bench. in fact in the pil also, certain orders passed by the land tribunal in similar circumstances are in issue and in that regard, further proceedings were held by this court including the appointment of commissioner to submit a report and a committee was also constituted so as to determine the status of the lands and nature of right claimed. therefore, notwithstanding the view taken by the learned single judge, the other aspect of the matter relating to the nature of right claimed needs consideration keeping in perspective the opinion expressed by us with regard to the notification issued and the nature of the lands since those aspects also become relevant.21. in that regard, a perusal of the proceedings in the pil would indicate that the state government itself is in fact responsible for the present sorry state of affairs. they were in deep slumber and by their objection statement had in fact initially contended that lands in question are within the province of the revenue department and sought to justify the action of the respondents. however, due to the repeated proceedings before this court to ascertain the correct position, the official respondents stumbled upon the notification dated 06.03.1928 which has become the mainstay. by the order dated 28.03.2000 passed in the pil (writ petition no.9573/99 herein) this court appointed sri. r.m.n. sahai, conservator of forests and general manager, karnataka state forest industries corporation ltd., bangalore as the court commissioner to submit the status report. the said commissioner filed his report dated 18.07.2000 before this court.22. the commissioner’s report refers to the lands which are claimed by respondent nos. 7 to 18 in the writ petition (pil). the date of the grant orders, the extent and location has been indicated and the following observation is made.“5. the areas in question fall in tropical moist deciduous/semi-evergreen type of forest area and are with moderate to steep slopes. the area receive very heavy rainfall during monsoon months with annual rainfall of about 2340 mm as per the chikmagalur district gazetteer. the area is in the catchment of bhadra river which runs through mavinakere village. from the quality of soil, rainfall, topography, geographical location, and on comparison with the vegetation in adjacent relatively untouched forest patches. it is easy to infer that these areas are capable of developing and supporting thick and lush semi-evergreen/moist deciduous forest, if protected from biotic interference.”23. the commissioner in his report has further indicated the number of naturally grown trees per acre in respect of the lands of the respondents and also the encroachments made by six of the persons indicated in the report. the report filed before the supreme court in w.p. no. 202/95 is referred to indicate that if there are more than ten trees per acre, it would constitute thickly wooded area and as such in the instant case, it is thickly wooded area. further, with reference to the notification dated 06.03.1928 it is stated that the land in question falls in the mavinakere-talgode reserve forest block. the annexures attached to the report indicates that the sketch etc has been looked into and a procedure has been followed.24. as noticed, the reported has been filed on 18.07.2000. though the private respondents have not filed separate objection statement to the report, the objection statement filed by respondent nos.7, 11, 15 and 18 on 19.02.2001, 16.03.2001, 21.03.2001 and 23.03.2001 respectively to the wit petition refers to the report. the objections are in similar lines and it would be appropriate to notice the objection statement of respondent no.18. at the outset, reference is made in the objection statement to other persons who have been granted during the same period, but not made parties to the proceedings. the averments made thereafter in para-9 appears to be the response regarding existence of trees in the area as also indicated in the report. it reads as hereunder:“9. it is to be submitted in this context that coffee plantation is always done on sloppy lands. a planter who owns a coffee land will have raised valuable trees for purpose of shade in the coffee land. without shade, no coffee plant can be profitably raised in a coffee land. every coffee plantation looks like a forest for the reason that the planter will have raised valuable trees and may be some trees will also be grown naturally. further, to raise a coffee plantation, the trees are a must and those trees are raised by spending lot of money by the owners of coffee plantations including respondent no.18 and these trees will have to be pruned periodically and some of the old trees will have to be removed and in their place and in trees will have to be raised again. for this purpose, the coffee planters will be always planting a sapling to raise a tree expecting an old tree to go out. this is how the required shade is maintained by the coffee planters in the coffee lands owned by them, including respondent no.18. this hon’ble court may be pleased to see any coffee estate either in the district of chickmagalur or in the neighboring districts where every coffee plantation looks like a forest. just because some trees are grown naturally in a coffee land and just because there will be lot of trees in a coffee land does not mean that it ceases to be a coffee land and it becomes a forest land. as a matter of fact, for raising the trees a coffee planter including respondent no. 18, will have to spend lot of money. in fact, if no trees are existing in a coffee land, no coffee crop can be had. therefore, the very approach of the petitioners is something mysterious. in fact, one of the petitioners viz. petitioner no.1 owns a coffee land and even his coffee estate looks like a forest. his coffee estate is in hemnalikki village or kalasa hobli and it is at a distance of 4 kms from balehole of mavinakere village.”25. the above retort no doubt would be valid and acceptable only in the case where the land wherein the coffee plantation exists is acquired by the owner in any other manner having right and title as recognized in law. in the instant case, the very question is whether the grant made is valid in the background of the notification dated 06.03.1928 in respect of forest land and what as the right acquired by such grantees even if the coffee plantation exists. the commissioner’s report though refers to the number of trees in the area and also a reference to another report to classify the area as thickly wooded when the main crop is the trees, does not refer to the existence of the coffee plantation or has it in specific terms stated about the absence of the same. if the coffee plantation existed, the likely age of the coffee plants could have also been determined and indicated in the report.26. the above aspects also become relevant while keeping in view the further contention in para-14 of the objection statement which reads as hereunder:“14. in fact, this temple was getting revenue from coffee lands, dry lands, gomal lands, forest lands and other types of lands including from sandalwood. the order and notifications of the year 1928 issued by the government of his highness the maharaja of mysore was never implemented, except in paper. however, even that order recognises the ownership of the deity in respect of the lands including some forest lands. the government in their possession have the proceedings of the government order has come into existence on 13.02.1933 approving that the lands owned by the temple in question may be granted for cultivation though some land had been reserved as forest in the year 1928. a copy of the proceedings of the government of his highness the maharaja of mysore is produced herewith as annexure-r1. annexure-‘b’ proceedings only concedes the right of the temple in respect of the lands of which the temple was the owner. annexure-‘b’ also indicates that apart from some forest lands, the temple owned other lands also, which are agricultural and plantation lands.”27. in the above context, the grantees under the kcria act are claiming right on the said act coming into force on 01.07.1970 since according to them, they were tenants under the temple which was permissible even after 1928. if that be the position, the persons who sought for occupancy right even if they had cultivated the land on obtaining it from the temple without involvement of the government, they can only claim to be the tenants as defined in kcria act. in such situation, when the lands in such occupation though ‘inam’ originally were protected forest, it would have to be looked at from that view and the provisions of kcria act will have to be construed in that light even assuming the act to be applicable. the contention of the private respondents that the notification of the year 1928 was only on paper and not acted upon by the government even if demonstrated would not take away the validity of the same merely because certain parties have acted contrary to the same. in that context, the reference made by respondent no.18 to the government order dated 13.02.1933 also becomes relevant, though an authenticated copy is not made available since it is an admission on the part of the private respondents that the government was exercising its right over the lands in question. in that regard, the said order states as follows:“that in regard to the grant of lands for cultivation in the reserve, each case will be dealt with on its merits.”though the objection statement filed on behalf of temple states about the income being received from the lands and paid by the government and also about the payment of tasdik allowance from 1970, the same does not provide any right to the occupants. the temple has not indicated details with materials to establish that it had granted tenancy to any person. in fact annexure-r3 produced along with their objection statement shows details of the amount received by the temple from the forest department as income from the forests. this will indicate that even from 1956 to 1970, the forest department was in control of the area.in furtherance to all of these, it is also necessary to notice that the government had set up a committee headed by the deputy commissioner, chickmagalur with four other members during the pendency of the instant pil to take action to recover the forest lands. in that regard, a report prepared by the committee dated 27.06.2001, filed in this court refers to 327 cases of land grants and 606 cases of encroachments and the action that had been taken as on that day. probably, it is such action that resulted in filing of certain writ petitions which are the subject matter of the writ appeals which are part of these proceedings.28. taking all the above aspects into consideration. it is necessary for us to crystallize the position and indicate the further course of action. in that direction, the entire sequence would clearly establish that the lands which are subject matter of the notification dated 06.03.1928 were inam forest lands. pursuant to the notification, it had become protected forest and on coming into force of the act 1963 it was to be considered as reserved forest. hence, the revenue authorities had no jurisdiction to make any grants under the karnataka land grants rule or such other grants under the karnataka land revenue act, more particularly after the forest (conservation) act, 1980 (the fc act for short) had come into force on 25.10.1980. in fact the hon’ble supreme court in the case of state of karnataka and others –vs- i.s. nirvane gowda and others (2007 (15) scc 744) has held that the grants made by the revenue department in respect of forest lands is of no consequence and would not confer title to the land. therefore, any contrary notification under the karnataka land revenue act to indicate the lands as revenue lands for any purpose also would not be valid unless dereservation is made in accordance with law under forest act. all such grants are therefore to be set aside. in so far as the encroachments, they shall not be permitted and they are liable to be evicted. the question however is with regard to persons claiming under kcria act as they contend that they had become tenants under the temple and at one point, it was inam land, though nature of the land was thickly wooded forest.29. in that regard, it is true that the kcria act came into force on 01.07.1970 abolishing all inams and the lands automatically vested with the government. the consequence of vesting is contained in section 3 of the act which is as under:“3. consequence of the vesting of an inam in the state.-(1) when the notification under sub-section (4) of section 14 in respect of any inam has been published in the mysore gazette, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any contract, grant or other instrument or in any other in law for the time being in force, with effect on and from the date of vesting, and save as otherwise expressly provided in this act, the following consequences shall ensure, namely:-(a) the provisions of the land revenue code relating to alternated holdings shall be deemed to have been repealed in their application to the inam; and the provisions of the (land revenue code and all other enactments applicable to unalternated, villages shall apply to the said inam;(b) all rights, title and interest vesting in the inamdar including those in all communal lands, cultivated lands, uncultivated lands, whether assessed or not, waste lands, pasture lands, forests, mines and minerals, quarries, river and streams, tanks and irrigation works, fisheries and ferries, shall cease and be vested absolutely in the state of mysore, free from all encumbrances:(c) the inamdar shall cease to have any interest in the inam other than the interests expressly saved by or under the provisions of this act:(d) all rents and land revenue including cesses and royalties accruing in respect of lands comprised in such inam on or after the date of vesting shall be payable to the state and not to the inamdar and any payment made in contravention of this clause shall not be valid:(e) all arrears of revenue, whether as jodi, quit-rent and cesses, remaining lawfully due on the date of vesting in respect of any such inam shall after such date continue to be recoverable from the inamdar by whom they were payable and may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, be realized by the deduction of the amount of such arrears and cesses from the compensation money payable to such inamdar under this act;(f) no such inam shall be liable to attachment or sale in execution of any decree or other process of any court and any attachment existing on the date of vesting or any order for attachment passed before such date in respect of such inam, shall cease to be in force:(g) the government may, after removing any obstruction that may be offered, forthwith take possession of the inam and all accounts, registers, pattas, mutchalikas, maps, plans and other documents relating to the inam which the government, may require for the administration thereof:provided that the government shall not disposses any person of any land in respect of which they consider that he is prima facie entitled to be registered as the occupant (or to be continued as a tenant):(h) the inamdar whose rights have vested and in the state of mysore under clause (b) shall be entitled only to compensation from the government as provided in this act:(i) the relationship of landlord and tenant shall, as between the inamdar and a kadim tenant or permanent tenant or any other tenant, be extinguished:(j) the relationship of superior holder and inferior holder shall, as between the inamdar and the holder of a minor inam, be extinguished:(k) kadim tenants, permanent tenants and other tenants in the inam and persons holding under them and holders of minor inams shall, as against the government, be entitled only to such rights and privileges and be subject to such conditions as are provided for by or under this act; and any other rights and privileges which may have accrued to them in the inam before the date of vesting against the inamdar shall cease and determine and shall not be enforceable against the government or such inamdar.(2) nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall operate as a bar to the recovery by the inamdar of any sum which becomes due to him before the date of vesting by virtue of his rights as inamdar and any such sum shall be recoverable by him by any process of law which but for this act would be available to him.”(emphasis supplied)30. in the instant case, since we have already concluded about the validity of notification providing protection to forest land and that on forest act. 1963 coming into force, it would be reserved forest, the vesting in the government in any event would be as forest land. in that view, the government was entitled to take possession in terms of section 3(g) as the proviso would not provide protection as prima facie such person would not be entitled to be registered as the occupant or be continued as the tenant of the forest land. this is further evident on perusal of section 9(1) of the krcia act which is as under:“9. determination of claims for registration of occupancy and continuation of tenancy: (1) the [tribunal] shall examine the nature and history of all lands in respect of which is person claims to be registered as an occupant under sections 4, 5, 5a, 6a 7 and 8] as the case may be, or in respect of which any person claims to be continued as tenant under section 6, and decide in respect of which lands the claims should be allowed.”(emphasis supplied)31. the above provision makes it obligatory even for the granting authority/tribunal to examine the nature and history of lands regarding which occupancy or continuation of tenancy is sought. therefore, even if by fiction of law the krcia act is held applicable as it was originally inam land, no right would be created due to the nature and history of the lands in the instant case being forest lands. ‘inam’ would include an inam village and a minor inam. there is nothing to suggest that inam land cannot be forest land. in fact section 3(b) provides for vesting of cultivated lands as well as forests and section 7 and 8 excludes grant of forest lands after it has vested in the state government.32. that apart, by such time the applications arose for consideration before the granting authorities, the fc act 1980 had also come into force with effect from 25.10.1980. in the light of the fc act, the issue relating to conservation of forests arose for consideration before the hon’ble supreme court in the case of t.n. godavarman thirumulkpad –vs- union of india (1997 (2) scc 267). in the said case the state governments were directed to identify areas which are ‘forests’ irrespective of whether they are so notified, recognized or classified under any law, irrespective of ownership of the land of such forest. further directions were also issued with a view to conserve the forest lands including to identify areas which were earlier forests but stand degraded, denuded or cleared. the official respondents have not indicated any material to establish that the lands in question had been included in any report made to the hon’ble supreme court, but the object needs to be achieved. the order was passed by the hon’ble supreme court on 12.12.1996. the official respondents in the instant case have no doubt been careless and had to be stirred into action by the pil which was filed in the year 1999. the proceedings in the pil, more particularly the orders dated 28.03.2000, 21.07.2000, 31.01.2001, 15.03.2001, 26.03.2001 and 10.04.2001 stand testimony to this fact.33. keeping all these aspects in perspective, since we have arrived at the conclusion that no right is created either for granting occupancy right or being continued as tenants keeping in view the nature and history of the lands, the learned single judge was not justified in granting the relief to the extent done by the order dated 07.08.2003. further, as noticed, the fc act 1980 had also come into force with effect from 25.10.1980. therefore, in respect of forest land neither the tribunal. appellate authority nor special deputy commissioner for inams abolition would have jurisdiction to grant the forest land subsequent to the said date without approval of the central government which has overriding effect over all other law. in that view, the distinction made by the learned single judge with regard to the orders passed prior to 24.04.1992 by the tribunal to uphold the same is inconsequential and is also not sustainable. hence, all grants made in respect of the lands in question without such approval of the central government are deemed to be void and invalid.34. the conservator of forests, chickmagalur circle shall therefore issue notice to all such occupants and grantees and take steps to evict them from the lands which are part of the notification dated 06.03.1928. however, having noticed the contention put forth that some of the grantees belong to the second or third generation and their forefathers/ancestors have been in cultivation having obtained the land from temple and since all of them are not before this court, it would be open to such of those beneficiaries of the order passed under the krcia act to bring to the notice of the conservator of forests that the forest land had been broken up for cultivation prior to 27.02.1964 i.e., the date on which the karnataka forest act came into force. however, to establish that they were in possession and cultivation prior to 27.02.1964 there should be authentic material to indicate that the tenancy is granted by the temple/ competent government authorities. further, since it is contended that there is coffee cultivation, proof of such cultivation in terms of the requirements under the coffee act 1942 shall also be produced. mere stray entries in revenue records shall not be acceptable. if the said requirements are found to be satisfied and in such cases, if the land tribunal/land reforms appellate authority/special deputy commissioner for inams has granted, the same shall form material for recommending to the central government/central advisory committee under fc act for consideration. if the recommendation is not accepted by the central government, it shall become final and they shall thereafter be evicted. if the above requirements are not satisfied and despite the same, if grants are made by the authorities indicated above, such grants shall remain void and invalid as already stated. the conservator of forests shall undertake the above exercise even in respect of persons who have had the benefit of the order of the learned single judge dated 07.08.2003 who are the respondents in w.a.no.1453-64/2005 and if they do not satisfy the condition stipulated above, they shall also be evicted. the said procedure shall also be followed in respect of respondent no.7 to 8 to w.p.no.9573/1999 (pil). insofar as the appellant in w.a.no.1558/2007, it is seen that the conservator of forests as the appellate authority has already rejected the case of the appellant. the appellant therein had claimed right in respect of a portion of the property as having purchased under sale deed dated 04.10.1989 from its previous owners and in respect of the other portion since it is contended that the revenue authorities have collected t.t. fine, it is obviously on encroached land. not only survey has been conducted to indicate it as forest land, we have also concluded that they are forest lands and as such he is liable to be evicted. the learned single judge was therefore justified in his conclusion.35. in the result, we pass the followingorderi) w.a. nos.1453-64/2005 are allowed in the above terms. the order dated 07.08.2003 passed by the learned single judge is set aside to the extent assailed.ii) w.a.no.1558/2007 is dismissed.iii) w.p.no.9573/1999 is allowed in terms of the above with the following directions:iv) the conservator of forests, chickmagalur circle is directed to take steps to evict all persons who are not entitled to remain in possession of the forest lands which is the subject matter of the notification dated 06.03.1928 as indicated above in paras 28, 33 and 34 and take possession of the same.v) the conservator of forests, chickmagalur circle shall file the action taken report before this court on or before 31.12.2012.vi) parties to bear their own costs.

Judgment:

(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to quash vide Anx. A1 dated 25.11.1993. Anx. 92 dated 30.09.93. Anx.A3 dated 28.10.93. Anx. A4 dated 14.09.93. Anx. A5 dated 17.02.94. Anx.A6 Dated 25.11.93 and Anx.97 dated 19.07.89 passed by R4 and R5 and direct the R1 to hold an enquiry into the matter and take such other action in accordance with law.)

1. The writ petition in W.P.No.9573/1999 is filed by the petitioners claiming to be residents of Balehole, Chickmangalur District. The grant made by respondent Nos.4 and 5 viz., the Land Tribunal and the Land Reforms Appellate Authority respectively in favour of respondent Nos.7 to 18 under the Karnataka (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the KRCIA Act’ for short] is called in question.

2. The petitioners contend that the lands in question which were claimed by respondent Nos.7 to 18 as occupants for the purpose of grant on abolition of Inams did not continue to be Inam lands as on the date of the coming into force of the KRCIA Act. According to the petitioners, the land in question earlier belonged to Sri Kalasheshwara Swamy Temple, Kalasa, Mudigere Taluk, Chickmangalur District. Out of the total extent of 14357 acres, more than 10000 acres of land are thick forest land consisting of valuable trees and they are notified as ‘Reserved Forest’. It is their contention that except for the remaining extent of 4109 acres which remained to be Inam land wherein the grants could be made, the grant in the other extent which are forest land is not valid. It is in that context, contended that the forest lands are to be preserved by quashing the illegal orders of grant made in favour of respondent Nos.7 to 18. The private respondents have no doubt opposed the petition and have contended that the lands remained to be the Inam lands and after consideration of material, the grants have been made in their favour which according to them is valid.

3. In the background of the above petition, the Deputy Commissioner, Chickmagalur District had passed certain orders directing that the lands which were the subject matter in Writ Petition Nos.26882-26883/2001 connected with W.P.Nos. 26570-26575/2001, 26459/01, 26568/01, 26183/01, 24742-24743/01, 26608/01, 26494-26495/01. 27044/01, 36434-36452/01, 39542/01 be entered as forest land in the revenue records and directed the petitioners therein to handover vacant possession to the Forest Department. That led to the proceedings before the learned Single Judge. The reason for doing so was that according to the official respondents, the lands in question formed part of the land included in the notification dated 06.03.1928 issued under the Mysore Forest Regulation declaring the same as ‘Reserved Forest’. Some of the petitioners therein had challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner, while few had challenged the show cause notices and the others challenged the notification dated 06.03.1928 itself. The learned Single Judge though did not find it necessary to quash the notification dated 06.03.1928, has held the lands in question to be Inam lands endowed to the deity. In that view, the learned Single Judge allowed certain of the writ petitions and quashed the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. In the other writ petitions, where notices had been issued by the Deputy Commissioner, the learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition and permitted the petitioners therein to file their reply. The Deputy Commissioner and the State of Karnataka being aggrieved are in appeal in W.A.Nos.1453-1464/2004.

4. The petitioner in W.P.No.28612/2003 against whom the order dated 29.05.2003 was passed by the Conservator of Forests-cum-Appellate Authority, Chickmagalur in Forest Appeal No.27/2001 affirming the order passed by the Deputy Conservator of Forests, had assailed the same. The said orders were passed alleging that the petitioner therein had encroached 45 acres 20 guntas of Mavinakere Thalangad Reserve Forest. The said Reserve Forest is also declared under the notification dated 06.03.1928. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition by order dated 06.06.2007. The petitioner therefore has filed the appeal in WA.No.1558/2007.

5. Though all the said proceedings have been initiated separately on different cause of action, the issue ultimately is as to whether the lands in question in all the said proceedings are forest lands. In that regard, the notification dated 06.03.1928 would fall for consideration and as such, the above writ petition and the writ appeals are considered together.

6. On behalf of the Government, the notification dated 06.03.1928 bearing No.G. 10192-96-Ft.267-27-5 published in part II of the Mysore Gazette dated 15.03.1928 is relied to contend that the lands measuring different extents in Devarabetta. Karimane Kalgod, Mavinakere Talagode, Thotadur and Balagi with the boundaries indicated thereto were notified as ‘Reserved Forest’ under the Mysore Forest Regulation, 1900 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Regulation, 1900’). It is their case that even though the said lands were Inam lands of Sri Kalasheshwara Swamy Temple, the same being Muzurai Temple, the proceedings would disclose that it was notified with the knowledge of the Muzurai Commissioner. In that regard, the proceedings dated 03.11.1924 whereby the Muzurai Commissioner was requested to submit the final report as regards the transfer of Management of the Temple’s forest lands to the Forest Department is referred. The order No.420-2/MUZ115-24-6 dated 09.10.1925 is referred to point out that the Deputy Commissioner, Kadur District has reported that the Dharmadarshis of the temple have agreed for the proposal being sanctioned without prejudice to the right to remove leaves etc for agricultural purposes. Hence, it is contended that the preliminary procedures were followed and the notification dated 06.03.1928 was issued. The subsequent notification No.A.F 1800-Ft-252-49-24 dated 25.10.1943 is relied on to point out that His Highness the Maharaja of Mysore has declared the blocks of forests which were already notified as reserved forest under the notification dated 06.03.1928 and the other notifications shall be deemed to be forests taken over for management by Government in the forest department. It is therefore contended that the lands in question which were already declared as ‘Reserved Forest’ did not remain as Inam lands as on the date of coming into force of the Mysore (Religious and Charitable) Inams Abolition Act, 1955. As such neither the Land Tribunal, Appellate Authority or the Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition have jurisdiction to grant the land. Hence, the action initiated against such illegal grants are sustainable in law. The contention on behalf of the petitioners in the public interest petition is also to the similar effect.

7. The contention on behalf of the private respondents in W.P.No.9573/1999 as also the respondents in W.A.1453-1464/2005 and the appellant in W.A.No.1558/2007 is in similar lines as urged before the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.26882/01 and connected petitions. In that regard, it is contended that the notification dated 06.03.1928 is not valid inasmuch as the same is issued under Section 35 (iii) of the Regulations. It is further contended that the said Regulation only provides for Regulation of the use relating to forest produce or pasturing in the Forest which belongs to the Government and it does not provide for declaring the land belonging to a private individual or any other owner, other than the Government as ‘Reserved Forest’. Since admittedly the lands in question were inam lands belonging to Sri Kalasheshwara Swamy Temple, the said land owned by the Deity could not have been declared under the said notification more particularly when the regulation is not applicable. In that view, the lands in question continued to remain as Inam lands in the occupation and cultivation of the private parties herein as tenants. The same had therefore vested in the Government on coming into force of the KRCIA Act creating right in their favour to seek regrant/occupancy right. Accordingly, on the applications being field by such persons, the Tribunal/Appellate Authority has granted the occupancy right which is in accordance with law. The learned Single Judge keeping in view the fact that the land in question was Inam land endowed to the Deity was of the opinion that there is no need to quash the notification dated 06.03.1928 as it did not apply to Inam land. The learned Single Judge has therefore, granted the relief to the petitioners which is justified and does not call for interference is the submission. However, insofar as WA No.1558/2007, it is contended that the learned Single Judge in the related writ petition had not appreciated this position more particularly when another learned Single Judge of this Court in a similar situation had taken a different view. Therefore, it is the contention that the order dated 06.06.2007 in W.P.No.28612/2003 is liable to be set aside. Insofar as the Writ Petition, it is contended that it is not in the nature of public interest. Certain political motive has instigated the petition, which is evident since only the private respondents therein are chosen to be impleaded when several persons also have been granted land in the same area.

8. In the background of the above, the issue which requires of the outset is the notification dated 06.03.1928. Though the said notification was called in question in few of the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge which forms part of the common order dated 07.08.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge did not deem it necessary to quash the notification. The petitioners who had challenged the same have not filed any appeal. Therefore, the position existing as on today is that the notification dated 06.03.1928 continues to subsist. However, the purport and scope of the notification arises for consideration so as to determine whether it has declared the status of land as ‘Reserved Forest’.

9. The notification is issued in exercise of the power contained in Section 35 (iii) of the Mysore Forest Regulations, 1900. Section 35 is contained in Chapter-IV relating to District Forests. The Section 35 (i) to (iii) reads as hereunder:

“35. Subject to all rights now legally vested in individuals and communities, the Government may, for any district of the forest produce or of the pasturage of any land at the disposal of Government and not included in a State or Village Forest.

Such rules may amongst other things –

(i) declare that certain trees shall be classed as reserved trees not to be felled without the special sanction of the Conservator of Forests or of an officer duly authorized by him;

(ii) declare that certain trees not classed as reserved shall be granted to cultivating raiyats on favourable rates of seigniorage;

(iii) provide for placing any area at the disposal of Government under special protection, in view to its subsequent settlement and constitution as a state Forest or for any other purpose, and prescribe the conditions and penalties attendant on such special protection;”

10. The sub-section (iii) is referred by the learned counsel for the private respondents to contend that the power therein can be exercised only in respect of lands owned by the Government and not in respect of any other land. The question that would therefore arise is as to whether the notification dated 06.03.1928 could have been issued in respect of lands which were not owned by the Government? In order to analyse this aspect of the matter, not only the regulation concerned, but also the notification and the earlier proceedings relating thereto would have to be considered. Though the Regulation 1900 is referred, it is seen that the Mysore Forest Act, 1900 passed on 16.11.1900 also contains similar provisions.

11. Provisions contained in Chapter IV relates to District Forests. Section 34 provides the power to the Government to grant privileges in a District Forest. The District Forest is defined under Section 2 (xii) to include all land at the disposal of the Government, not included within the limits of any State or Village Forest nor assigned at the survey settlement as free grazing ground or for any other public or communal purpose. The proviso therein provides that it shall be competent for the Government to modify or set aside such assignment and constitute any such land a State, Village or District Forest or devote the same to any other purpose it may deem fit. In the instant case, the undisputed position is that the lands in question were Inam lands endowed to the temple by the then Ruler Byravarsa of Karkala. The lands were thickly wooded forests surrounding the temple. The temple is a Muzurai institution which is within the control of the Government but managed by the committee in accordance with law is also one of the aspects. In that background, though the lands in fact did not belong to the Government by ownership, they were Inam Forest lands belonging to the Temple. None of the private respondents herein or such of the other persons who have been granted the lands or alleged to have encroached the lands claim ownership over the lands prior to the issue of notification dated 06.03.1928. This aspect is also required to be borne in mind while considering the overall aspects since only those persons who had interest in the lands as owners could have any objection to the notification if they chose to have. If this be the position, as on 06.03.1928 when the notification was issued by his Highness the Maharaja of Mysore, the only person/institution that could have raised any objection or have any reservations in respect of the notification is the Muzurai Temple or the Dharmadarshi/Committee which was incharge of the affairs or the management of the temple.

12. In that light, if Section 35 (iii) is perused, it would make it clear that, subject to the rights which had legally vested in individuals and communities as on the date of the notification by the Government, it would be open for the Government to make Rules to regulate the use of the forest produce or of the pasturage of any land at the disposal of the Government but not included in a State or Village forest. Hence, such notification can provide for any area at the disposal of the Government to be placed under special protection in view of its subsequent settlement and constitution as a State forest or for any other purpose and prescribe the conditions and penalties attendant on such special protection. The phrase employed in Sec. 35(iii) and also while defining the ‘District Forest’ is “lands at the disposal of Government”. In order to understand the purport of the said expression, it would be necessary to call in aid similar provisions contained in the subsequent enactment which is brought in to consolidate and amend the law relating to forests and forest produce in the State of Karnataka. In that regard, a reference to the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 would indicate that the term ‘Reserved Forest’ is contained therein for the first time and Chapter-II relates to the power to constitute, notify and regulate other rights thereunder. It would be appropriate to refer to Section 3 which reads as hereunder:

“3. Powers to constitute reserved forest – The State Government may constitute any land which is the property of the Government or over which the Government has proprietary rights, or to the whole, or any part of the forest produce of which the Government is entitled, a reserved forest in the manner hereinafter provided”.

(emphasis supplied)

13. In contra distinction to the above, the term ‘District Forest’ defined in Section 2(2) and Section 33 relating to District Forest in the same Act uses the phrase “land at the disposal of Government” while empowering the State Government to regulate the use of forest produce or pasturage. Therefore, what is distinct is that to declare and notify a forest as ‘Reserved Forest’, it should be the “property of Government” or “over which the Government has proprietary rights”. On the other hand to place restrictions relating to the use of forest, it should only be “at the disposal of the Government” which is the same position under the earlier Act as well as present one. In the instant case, though the Regulation 1900 did not define or make any provision relating to ‘Reserved Forest’, except for reserving rights over certain varieties of trees, the notification dated 06.03.1928 refers to ‘Reserved Forest’. The notification should therefore be construed as the one made for providing special protection to the forest, the details of which are indicated in the notification with reference to the boundaries.

14. The proper understanding of the provision would therefore make it clear that to provide protection to a existing forest, the Government need not have to be the owner of the property having proprietary right as owner, but the requirement is only that, it should be available at the disposal of the Government. The fact as to whether the lands in a particular case was available at the disposal of the Government would depend on each case in the circumstances arising therein. If the aspect is kept in view, and as already noticed, since no other private individual is claiming ownership rights over the property in the instant case, and since the lands were forest lands being endowed to a Temple which is Muzurai Institution, whether it was available at the disposal of the Government in order to notify the same needs consideration from the facts emanating in this case.

15. In this background, keeping in view that the lands were Inam Forest lands belonging to the ‘Temple, a Muzurai Institution, the proceedings which had preceded the notification dated 06.03.1928 needs to be noticed. The order No.420-2/MUZ 115-24-6 dated 9.10.1925 refers to the earlier Government order No.628-31/MUZ-31-24-2 dated 03.11.1924 whereunder the Muzurai Commissioner in Mysore was requested to submit a final report among other matters as regards the improvement of forest revenue of Kalasheshwara Swamy temple and transfer of management of the temple forest lands to the forest department. The Muzurai Commissioner by his letter No.980/1922-23 dated 15.06.1925 is stated to have submitted his proposals. In that context, the order dated 09.10.1925 is passed taking note of the report that the total extent of forest lands belonging to the Temple is about 11000 acres and the controlled timber revenue could be used by preventing smuggling and illicit removal of forest produce. The report of the Deputy Commissioner, Kadur district is also referred to indicate that the Dharmadarshis of the Temple had agreed for the proposal being sanctioned without prejudice to the ‘mamool rights’ of the villagers to remove leaves etc for agricultural purposes. Since by the said order the proposals were sanctioned, the letter No.D43388 dated 23.12.1927 was issued by the Chief Conservator of Forests in Mysore submitting the draft notifications for reservation, the notification dated 06.03.1928 was ultimately issued under Section 35 (iii) of the Regulations. The notification reads as hereunder:

“The Government of his Highness the Maharaja of Mysore are pleased to declare under the provisions of Section 35 (iii) of the Mysore Forest Regulation XI of 1900 that the area the boundaries of which are set forth in the schedule annexed to this notification is constituted into a reserved forest.”

16. The said notification thereafter contains the details of the lands with the boundaries. As noticed above, the term ‘Reserved Forest’ is not contained or defined in the said Regulations. Hence, the power exercised under Section 35 (iii) is to reserve the said areas enclosed by the boundaries indicated therein for special protection. Since it had been placed under special protection with the consent of the Dharmadarshis, reserving only the ‘mamool rights’ of those individuals or communities which had the legally vested right as on the date of the notification (06.03.1928) they would continue to enjoy the same. The proceedings which preceded the issue of notification would lead to the conclusion that no fresh rights in respect of the said lands could have been created subsequent to the notification since the lands were placed at the disposal of the Government under special protection and the intention of handing over possession to the forest department was to protect the same as a forest. Hence, insofar as the notification dated 06.03.1928, it cannot be stated that it is contrary to the Regulations or without competence.

17. One more aspect which is relevant to be noticed is that in this backdrop, the Karnataka Forest Act 1963 came into force on 27-02-1964. That Act vide Section 117 repealed all earlier enactments (though Regulation 1900 is not mentioned, Karnataka Forest Act, 1900 is mentioned) but saved all actions under such repealed law. The second proviso therein indicates that any action taken under such law shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the corresponding provision of the present Act and shall continue to be in force accordingly unless and until superseded by anything done under the present Act. In that context, since we have earlier analysed that the property was at the disposal of the Government, even if it was the land gifted to the Temple. Section 106 of Act, 1963 becomes relevant. The same reads as hereunder.

“106. Management of forests which are the joint property of State Government and other persons.-

(1) If the State Government and any person be jointly interested in any forest or wasteland, or in the whole or any part of the produce thereof, the State Government may either-

(a) undertake the management of such forest, wasteland produce, accounting to such person for his interest in the same; or

(b) issue such regulations for the management of the forest, wasteland or produce by the person so jointly interested as it deems necessary for the management thereof and the interests of all parties therein.

(2) When the State Government undertakes under clause (a) of sub-section(1) the management of any forest, wasteland or produce it may, by notification, declare that any of the provisions contained in Chapters II and IV shall apply to such forest, wasteland or produce, and thereupon such provisions shall apply accordingly.”

Sub-Section (2) to Section 106 provides for chapter II and IV to be applicable. As such in view of the earlier notification placing it under special protection for its subsequent settlement and constitution, the provisions become applicable with effect from 26.02.1964 since the earlier notification had the intention of constituting the ‘Reserved Forest’ and the same was done in league with the Muzarai Institution. The Bar of accrual of forest rights as contained in Section 6 of Act, 1963 would also become applicable with effect from the date of that Act. Even otherwise, it has vested in the Government with Absolute right with effect from 01.07.1970.

18. In that view, the question that would further arise for consideration is as to whether the claim of the private respondents herein and such other persons, who are not parties to the instant proceedings relating to the claim of occupancy right under the KRCIA Act and grant under the Karnataka Land Grant Rules would be valid?

19. Insofar as the respondents in W.A.Nos.1453-64/2004, it relates to the occupancy right which was made under KRCIA Act. In that regard, the case of the petitioners in W.P. Nos. 26494 and 26495/2001 is taken as an instance for consideration. The petitioners claim to be the owner of land bearing Sy. No. 715/A measuring 10 acres of Mavinkere Village and No. 826 measuring 1 acre of Talgode which is also a part of the lands in issue. Though the petitioner has averred with regard to the property being Inam land as noticed above, he has not averred the manner in which he came into possession except stating that he has been cultivating for more than 35 years. To support such claim, he has produced extract of RTC but the same is for the year 2000-01 and does not establish anything earlier since the only entry found therein is the mutation in MR.75/95-96 and MR.130/95-96 as also MR.104/98-99 which are based on the order passed by the Land Tribunal in the Inam grant proceedings but does not establish anything earlier to it which is most relevant. The said order and entries were to be cancelled due to the proceedings in W.P. No. 9573/99 (PIL) which is being considered herein and the petitioner was thereafter before the learned Single Judge. The grounds were mainly against the subsequent action by the authorities, but the earlier right justifying the grant by the Tribunal had not been put forth effectively. It is similar in all the other cases with minor variations. In the case taken as an instance, the Tribunal in fact had rejected the claim. The Appellate Tribunal no doubt referred to certain decision of the Trustees to permit cultivation and the entry in the Pahani for the year 1965-66 as Coffee Kharab and Inam land. Similarly several other persons have been claiming as Inam land and having cultivated coffee.

20. In the circumstances in which the matter was before the learned Single-Judge, wherein the order assailed was passed taking note of the proceedings in the public interest petition, the appropriate course to be adopted by the learned Single Judge should have been to direct the said petitions also to be considered along with the PIL which was pending before the Division Bench. In fact in the PIL also, certain orders passed by the Land Tribunal in similar circumstances are in issue and in that regard, further proceedings were held by this Court including the appointment of Commissioner to submit a Report and a Committee was also constituted so as to determine the status of the lands and nature of right claimed. Therefore, notwithstanding the view taken by the learned Single Judge, the other aspect of the matter relating to the nature of right claimed needs consideration keeping in perspective the opinion expressed by us with regard to the notification issued and the nature of the lands since those aspects also become relevant.

21. In that regard, a perusal of the proceedings in the PIL would indicate that the State Government itself is in fact responsible for the present sorry state of affairs. They were in deep slumber and by their objection statement had in fact initially contended that lands in question are within the province of the Revenue Department and sought to justify the action of the Respondents. However, due to the repeated proceedings before this Court to ascertain the correct position, the official respondents stumbled upon the notification dated 06.03.1928 which has become the mainstay. By the order dated 28.03.2000 passed in the PIL (Writ Petition No.9573/99 herein) this Court appointed Sri. R.M.N. Sahai, Conservator of Forests and General Manager, Karnataka State Forest Industries Corporation Ltd., Bangalore as the Court Commissioner to submit the status report. The said Commissioner filed his report dated 18.07.2000 before this Court.

22. The Commissioner’s report refers to the lands which are claimed by Respondent Nos. 7 to 18 in the Writ Petition (PIL). The date of the grant orders, the extent and location has been indicated and the following observation is made.

“5. The areas in question fall in tropical moist deciduous/semi-evergreen type of forest area and are with moderate to steep slopes. The area receive very heavy rainfall during monsoon months with annual rainfall of about 2340 mm as per the Chikmagalur District Gazetteer. The area is in the catchment of Bhadra River which runs through Mavinakere Village. From the quality of soil, rainfall, topography, geographical location, and on comparison with the vegetation in adjacent relatively untouched forest patches. It is easy to infer that these areas are capable of developing and supporting thick and lush semi-evergreen/moist deciduous forest, if protected from biotic interference.”

23. The Commissioner in his report has further indicated the number of naturally grown trees per acre in respect of the lands of the respondents and also the encroachments made by six of the persons indicated in the report. The report filed before the Supreme Court in W.P. No. 202/95 is referred to indicate that if there are more than ten trees per acre, it would constitute thickly wooded area and as such in the instant case, it is thickly wooded area. Further, with reference to the notification dated 06.03.1928 it is stated that the land in question falls in the Mavinakere-Talgode Reserve Forest Block. The Annexures attached to the report indicates that the sketch etc has been looked into and a procedure has been followed.

24. As noticed, the reported has been filed on 18.07.2000. Though the private respondents have not filed separate objection statement to the report, the objection statement filed by respondent Nos.7, 11, 15 and 18 on 19.02.2001, 16.03.2001, 21.03.2001 and 23.03.2001 respectively to the wit petition refers to the report. The objections are in similar lines and it would be appropriate to notice the objection statement of respondent No.18. At the outset, reference is made in the objection statement to other persons who have been granted during the same period, but not made parties to the proceedings. The averments made thereafter in para-9 appears to be the response regarding existence of trees in the area as also indicated in the report. It reads as hereunder:

“9. It is to be submitted in this context that coffee plantation is always done on sloppy lands. A planter who owns a coffee land will have raised valuable trees for purpose of shade in the coffee land. Without shade, no coffee plant can be profitably raised in a coffee land. Every coffee plantation looks like a forest for the reason that the planter will have raised valuable trees and may be some trees will also be grown naturally. Further, to raise a coffee plantation, the trees are a must and those trees are raised by spending lot of money by the owners of coffee plantations including Respondent No.18 and these trees will have to be pruned periodically and some of the old trees will have to be removed and in their place and in trees will have to be raised again. For this purpose, the coffee planters will be always planting a sapling to raise a tree expecting an old tree to go out. This is how the required shade is maintained by the coffee planters in the coffee lands owned by them, including Respondent No.18. This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to see any coffee estate either in the District of Chickmagalur or in the neighboring Districts where every coffee plantation looks like a forest. Just because some trees are grown naturally in a coffee land and just because there will be lot of trees in a coffee land does not mean that it ceases to be a coffee land and it becomes a forest land. As a matter of fact, for raising the trees a coffee planter including Respondent No. 18, will have to spend lot of money. In fact, if no trees are existing in a coffee land, no coffee crop can be had. Therefore, the very approach of the petitioners is something mysterious. In fact, one of the petitioners viz. Petitioner No.1 owns a coffee land and even his coffee estate looks like a forest. His coffee estate is in Hemnalikki Village or Kalasa hobli and it is at a distance of 4 KMs from Balehole of Mavinakere village.”

25. The above retort no doubt would be valid and acceptable only in the case where the land wherein the coffee plantation exists is acquired by the owner in any other manner having right and title as recognized in law. In the instant case, the very question is whether the grant made is valid in the background of the notification dated 06.03.1928 in respect of forest land and what as the right acquired by such grantees even if the coffee plantation exists. The Commissioner’s report though refers to the number of trees in the area and also a reference to another report to classify the area as thickly wooded when the main crop is the trees, does not refer to the existence of the coffee plantation or has it in specific terms stated about the absence of the same. If the coffee plantation existed, the likely age of the coffee plants could have also been determined and indicated in the report.

26. The above aspects also become relevant while keeping in view the further contention in para-14 of the objection statement which reads as hereunder:

“14. In fact, this temple was getting revenue from coffee lands, dry lands, gomal lands, forest lands and other types of lands including from sandalwood. The order and notifications of the year 1928 issued by the Government of His Highness the Maharaja of Mysore was never implemented, except in paper. However, even that order recognises the ownership of the deity in respect of the lands including some forest lands. The Government in their possession have the proceedings of the Government Order has come into existence on 13.02.1933 approving that the lands owned by the temple in question may be granted for cultivation though some land had been reserved as forest in the year 1928. A copy of the proceedings of the Government of His Highness the Maharaja of Mysore is produced herewith as ANNEXURE-R1. ANNEXURE-‘B’ proceedings only concedes the right of the temple in respect of the lands of which the temple was the owner. ANNEXURE-‘B’ also indicates that apart from some forest lands, the temple owned other lands also, which are agricultural and plantation lands.”

27. In the above context, the grantees under the KCRIA Act are claiming right on the said Act coming into force on 01.07.1970 since according to them, they were tenants under the Temple which was permissible even after 1928. If that be the position, the persons who sought for occupancy right even if they had cultivated the land on obtaining it from the Temple without involvement of the Government, they can only claim to be the Tenants as defined in KCRIA Act. In such situation, when the lands in such occupation though ‘Inam’ originally were protected forest, it would have to be looked at from that view and the provisions of KCRIA Act will have to be construed in that light even assuming the Act to be applicable. The contention of the private respondents that the notification of the year 1928 was only on paper and not acted upon by the Government even if demonstrated would not take away the validity of the same merely because certain parties have acted contrary to the same. In that context, the reference made by Respondent No.18 to the Government Order dated 13.02.1933 also becomes relevant, though an authenticated copy is not made available since it is an admission on the part of the private respondents that the Government was exercising its right over the lands in question. In that regard, the said order states as follows:

“That in regard to the grant of lands for cultivation in the reserve, each case will be dealt with on its merits.”

Though the objection statement filed on behalf of Temple states about the income being received from the lands and paid by the Government and also about the payment of Tasdik allowance from 1970, the same does not provide any right to the occupants. The Temple has not indicated details with materials to establish that it had granted tenancy to any person. In fact Annexure-R3 produced along with their objection statement shows details of the amount received by the Temple from the Forest Department as income from the forests. This will indicate that even from 1956 to 1970, the Forest Department was in control of the area.

In furtherance to all of these, it is also necessary to notice that the Government had set up a Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Chickmagalur with four other members during the pendency of the instant PIL to take action to recover the forest lands. In that regard, a report prepared by the Committee dated 27.06.2001, filed in this Court refers to 327 cases of Land Grants and 606 cases of Encroachments and the action that had been taken as on that day. Probably, it is such action that resulted in filing of certain Writ Petitions which are the subject matter of the Writ Appeals which are part of these proceedings.

28. Taking all the above aspects into consideration. It is necessary for us to crystallize the position and indicate the further course of action. In that direction, the entire sequence would clearly establish that the lands which are subject matter of the notification dated 06.03.1928 were Inam Forest Lands. Pursuant to the notification, it had become Protected Forest and on coming into force of the Act 1963 it was to be considered as Reserved Forest. Hence, the Revenue Authorities had no jurisdiction to make any grants under the Karnataka Land Grants Rule or such other grants under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, more particularly after the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (the FC Act for short) had come into force on 25.10.1980. In fact the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka and Others –vs- I.S. Nirvane Gowda and Others (2007 (15) SCC 744) has held that the grants made by the Revenue department in respect of Forest Lands is of no consequence and would not confer title to the land. Therefore, any contrary notification under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act to indicate the lands as Revenue Lands for any purpose also would not be valid unless dereservation is made in accordance with law under Forest Act. All such grants are therefore to be set aside. In so far as the encroachments, they shall not be permitted and they are liable to be evicted. The question however is with regard to persons claiming under KCRIA Act as they contend that they had become tenants under the Temple and at one point, it was Inam land, though nature of the land was thickly wooded forest.

29. In that regard, it is true that the KCRIA Act came into force on 01.07.1970 abolishing all Inams and the lands automatically vested with the Government. The consequence of vesting is contained in Section 3 of the Act which is as under:

“3. Consequence of the vesting of an Inam in the State.-(1) When the notification under Sub-section (4) of Section 14 in respect of any Inam has been published in the Mysore Gazette, then, notwithstanding anything contained in any contract, grant or other instrument or in any other in law for the time being in force, with effect on and from the date of vesting, and save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act, the following consequences shall ensure, namely:-

(a) the provisions of the Land Revenue Code relating to alternated holdings shall be deemed to have been repealed in their application to the Inam; and the provisions of the (Land Revenue Code and all other enactments applicable to unalternated, villages shall apply to the said inam;

(b) all rights, title and interest vesting in the inamdar including those in all communal lands, cultivated lands, uncultivated lands, whether assessed or not, waste lands, pasture lands, forests, mines and minerals, quarries, river and streams, tanks and irrigation works, fisheries and ferries, shall cease and be vested absolutely in the State of Mysore, free from all encumbrances:

(c) the inamdar shall cease to have any interest in the inam other than the interests expressly saved by or under the provisions of this Act:

(d) all rents and land revenue including cesses and royalties accruing in respect of lands comprised in such inam on or after the date of vesting shall be payable to the State and not to the inamdar and any payment made in contravention of this clause shall not be valid:

(e) all arrears of revenue, whether as jodi, quit-rent and cesses, remaining lawfully due on the date of vesting in respect of any such inam shall after such date continue to be recoverable from the inamdar by whom they were payable and may, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery, be realized by the deduction of the amount of such arrears and cesses from the compensation money payable to such inamdar under this Act;

(f) no such inam shall be liable to attachment or sale in execution of any decree or other process of any court and any attachment existing on the date of vesting or any order for attachment passed before such date in respect of such inam, shall cease to be in force:

(g) the Government may, after removing any obstruction that may be offered, forthwith take possession of the inam and all accounts, registers, pattas, mutchalikas, maps, plans and other documents relating to the inam which the Government, may require for the administration thereof:

Provided that the Government shall not disposses any person of any land in respect of which they consider that he is prima facie entitled to be registered as the occupant (or to be continued as a tenant):

(h) the inamdar whose rights have vested and in the State of Mysore under Clause (b) shall be entitled only to compensation from the Government as provided in this Act:

(i) the relationship of landlord and tenant shall, as between the inamdar and a kadim tenant or permanent tenant or any other tenant, be extinguished:

(j) the relationship of superior holder and inferior holder shall, as between the inamdar and the holder of a minor inam, be extinguished:

(k) kadim tenants, permanent tenants and other tenants in the inam and persons holding under them and holders of minor inams shall, as against the Government, be entitled only to such rights and privileges and be subject to such conditions as are provided for by or under this Act; and any other rights and privileges which may have accrued to them in the inam before the date of vesting against the inamdar shall cease and determine and shall not be enforceable against the Government or such inamdar.

(2) nothing contained in Sub-section (1) shall operate as a bar to the recovery by the inamdar of any sum which becomes due to him before the date of vesting by virtue of his rights as inamdar and any such sum shall be recoverable by him by any process of law which but for this Act would be available to him.”

(Emphasis supplied)

30. In the instant case, since we have already concluded about the validity of notification providing protection to forest land and that on Forest Act. 1963 coming into force, it would be reserved forest, the vesting in the Government in any event would be as Forest land. In that view, the Government was entitled to take possession in terms of Section 3(g) as the proviso would not provide protection as prima facie such person would not be entitled to be registered as the occupant or be continued as the tenant of the forest land. This is further evident on perusal of Section 9(1) of the KRCIA Act which is as under:

“9. Determination of claims for registration of occupancy and continuation of tenancy: (1) The [Tribunal] shall examine the nature and history of all lands in respect of which is person claims to be registered as an occupant under Sections 4, 5, 5A, 6A 7 and 8] as the case may be, or in respect of which any person claims to be continued as tenant under section 6, and decide in respect of which lands the claims should be allowed.”

(Emphasis supplied)

31. The above provision makes it obligatory even for the granting Authority/Tribunal to examine the nature and history of lands regarding which occupancy or continuation of tenancy is sought. Therefore, even if by fiction of law the KRCIA Act is held applicable as it was originally Inam Land, no right would be created due to the nature and history of the lands in the instant case being forest lands. ‘Inam’ would include an inam village and a minor inam. There is nothing to suggest that Inam land cannot be forest land. In fact Section 3(b) provides for vesting of cultivated lands as well as forests and Section 7 and 8 excludes grant of forest lands after it has vested in the State Government.

32. That apart, by such time the applications arose for consideration before the granting authorities, the FC Act 1980 had also come into force with effect from 25.10.1980. In the light of the FC Act, the issue relating to Conservation of Forests arose for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad –vs- Union of India (1997 (2) SCC 267). In the said case the State Governments were directed to identify areas which are ‘forests’ irrespective of whether they are so notified, recognized or classified under any law, irrespective of ownership of the land of such forest. Further directions were also issued with a view to conserve the forest lands including to identify areas which were earlier forests but stand degraded, denuded or cleared. The Official respondents have not indicated any material to establish that the lands in question had been included in any report made to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, but the object needs to be achieved. The order was passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 12.12.1996. The Official respondents in the instant case have no doubt been careless and had to be stirred into action by the PIL which was filed in the year 1999. The proceedings in the PIL, more particularly the orders dated 28.03.2000, 21.07.2000, 31.01.2001, 15.03.2001, 26.03.2001 and 10.04.2001 stand testimony to this fact.

33. Keeping all these aspects in perspective, since we have arrived at the conclusion that no right is created either for granting occupancy right or being continued as tenants keeping in view the nature and history of the lands, the learned Single Judge was not justified in granting the relief to the extent done by the order dated 07.08.2003. Further, as noticed, the FC Act 1980 had also come into force with effect from 25.10.1980. Therefore, in respect of forest land neither the Tribunal. Appellate Authority nor Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams Abolition would have jurisdiction to grant the forest land subsequent to the said date without approval of the Central Government which has overriding effect over all other law. In that view, the distinction made by the learned Single Judge with regard to the orders passed prior to 24.04.1992 by the Tribunal to uphold the same is inconsequential and is also not sustainable. Hence, all grants made in respect of the lands in question without such approval of the Central Government are deemed to be void and invalid.

34. The Conservator of Forests, Chickmagalur Circle shall therefore issue notice to all such occupants and grantees and take steps to evict them from the lands which are part of the notification dated 06.03.1928. However, having noticed the contention put forth that some of the grantees belong to the second or third generation and their forefathers/ancestors have been in cultivation having obtained the land from Temple and since all of them are not before this Court, it would be open to such of those beneficiaries of the order passed under the KRCIA Act to bring to the notice of the Conservator of Forests that the forest land had been broken up for cultivation prior to 27.02.1964 i.e., the date on which the Karnataka Forest Act came into force. However, to establish that they were in possession and cultivation prior to 27.02.1964 there should be authentic material to indicate that the tenancy is granted by the Temple/ Competent Government Authorities. Further, since it is contended that there is coffee cultivation, proof of such cultivation in terms of the requirements under the Coffee Act 1942 shall also be produced. Mere stray entries in revenue records shall not be acceptable. If the said requirements are found to be satisfied and in such cases, if the Land Tribunal/Land Reforms Appellate Authority/Special Deputy Commissioner for Inams has granted, the same shall form material for recommending to the Central Government/Central Advisory Committee under FC Act for consideration. If the recommendation is not accepted by the Central Government, it shall become final and they shall thereafter be evicted. If the above requirements are not satisfied and despite the same, if grants are made by the Authorities indicated above, such grants shall remain void and invalid as already stated. The Conservator of Forests shall undertake the above exercise even in respect of persons who have had the benefit of the order of the learned Single Judge dated 07.08.2003 who are the respondents in W.A.No.1453-64/2005 and if they do not satisfy the condition stipulated above, they shall also be evicted. The said procedure shall also be followed in respect of respondent No.7 to 8 to W.P.No.9573/1999 (PIL). Insofar as the appellant in W.A.No.1558/2007, it is seen that the Conservator of Forests as the Appellate Authority has already rejected the case of the appellant. The appellant therein had claimed right in respect of a portion of the property as having purchased under sale deed dated 04.10.1989 from its previous owners and in respect of the other portion since it is contended that the Revenue Authorities have collected T.T. Fine, it is obviously on encroached land. Not only survey has been conducted to indicate it as forest land, we have also concluded that they are forest lands and as such he is liable to be evicted. The learned Single Judge was therefore justified in his conclusion.

35. In the result, we pass the following

ORDER

i) W.A. Nos.1453-64/2005 are allowed in the above terms. The order dated 07.08.2003 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside to the extent assailed.

ii) W.A.No.1558/2007 is dismissed.

iii) W.P.No.9573/1999 is allowed in terms of the above with the following directions:

iv) The Conservator of Forests, Chickmagalur Circle is directed to take steps to evict all persons who are not entitled to remain in possession of the forest lands which is the subject matter of the notification dated 06.03.1928 as indicated above in paras 28, 33 and 34 and take possession of the same.

v) The Conservator of Forests, Chickmagalur Circle shall file the action taken report before this Court on or before 31.12.2012.

vi) Parties to bear their own costs.