Sri Vanadurga Raita Shakthi Gumpu v. State of Karnataka

Order dated 15.05.2014.

¶11We may also refer to the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of T.N.Godavarman Thirumulkpad v. Union of India and others1: "4. The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was enacted with a view to check further deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance; and therefore, the provisions made therein for the conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith, must apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof. The word "forest" must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. This description covers all statutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(i) of the Forest Conservation Act. The term "forest land", occurring in Section 2, will not

1 (1997) 2 SCC 267

only include "forest" as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership. This is how it has to be understood for the purpose of Section 2 of the Act. The provisions enacted in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for the conservation of forests and the matters connected therewith must apply clearly to all forests so understood irrespective of the ownership or classification thereof. This aspect has been made abundantly clear in the decisions of this Court in Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat, Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. and recently in the order dated 29-11-1996 (Supreme Court Monitoring Committee v. Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority. The earlier decision of this Court in State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi has, therefore, to be understood in the light of these subsequent decisions. We consider it necessary to reiterate this settled position emerging from the decisions of this Court to dispel the doubt, if any, in the perception of any State Government or authority. This has become necessary also because of the stand taken on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, even at this late stage, relating to permissions granted for mining in such area which is clearly contrary to the decisions of this Court. It is reasonable to assume that any State Government which has failed to appreciate the correct position in law so far, will forthwith correct its stance and take the necessary remedial measures without any further delay."

¶12The Supreme Court had amply clarified the meaning of the word 'Forest' as used in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and that prior approval of the Central Government was required for any non-forest activity within the forest.

¶13Since the subject land is a forest within the general meaning of the said term, no non-forest activities can be permitted without

the express permission of the Central Government under the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980.

¶14In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the impugned orders to the effect of diverting the subject land for non-forest purposes, are set aside.

Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE

KMV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 27

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT PETITION NO. 4337 OF 2022 (KLR-RES-PIL) BETWEEN: 1. SRI VANADURGA RAITA SHAKTHI GUMPU HALAGERI KAMBADAKONE VILLGE BYNDOOR TQ. UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 219 REP BY CONVERNER 2. U PRABHAKAR SHETTY S/OLT SIDDHAYYA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS CONVERNOER OF SRI VANADURGA RAITA SHAKTHI GUMPU U.P.SHETTY COMPOUND HALAGERI KAMBADAKONE VILLGE BYNDOOR TQ, UDUPI DIST - 576 219 3. RAMAKRISHNA KARANTH S/O LATE VASUDEVA KARANTH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS VICE CONVENER OF SRI VANADRUGA RAITHA SHAKTHI GUMPU HALAGERI, KAMBADAKONE VILLGE BYNDOOR TQ, UDUPI DIST - 576 219 Digitally signed by VEERENDRA KUMAR K M Location: High Court of Karnataka 4. MANJUNATHA GANIGA S/O LATE NARAYANA GANIGA UDDABETTY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS HALAGERI, KAMBADAKONE VILLAGE BYNDOOR TQ UDUPI DIST - 576 219 5. SHOBHA S SHETTY W/O SEETHARAM SHETTY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS HADIMANE, HALAGERI KAMBADAKONE VILLGE BYNDOOR TQ UDUPI DIST - 576 219 6. NAGENDRA GANIGA S/O MUTTHA GANIGA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS TEMPLE ROAD, HALAGERI KAMBADAKONE VILLAGE BYNDOOR TQ UDUPI DIST - 576 219 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI PRAKASH SHETTY S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA MINISTRY OF FOREST AND ENVIRONMENT MULTISTORIED BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001 BY ITS SECRETARY 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA MINISTRY OF REVENUE MULTISTORIED BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001 BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UDUPI DISTRICT UDUPI - 576 104 4. ASSTISTANT COMMISSIONER KUNDAPURA SUB DIVIOSN KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 201 5. THASILDAR BYNDOOR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 214 6. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST KUNAPURA SUB-DIVISION KUNDAPURA TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 201 7. GRAMA PANCHAYATH KAMBADAKONE VILLAGE BYNDOOR TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 219 REP BY ITS CEO …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R-1 TO R-6, SRI S.M. ANFAL, ADVOCATE FOR SRI K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R-7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAIN TO ANNEXURES-E, F AND P PASSED BY THE RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 AND ISSUE WRIT, ORDER, DIRECTION OR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH ORDER ANNEXURE-P DATED 26/11/2021 BEARING NO.A D S L N D PDR.CR/21/2021/E 63035 PASSED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT AND ANNEXURE-E DATED 18/05/2021 MADE IN BEARING NO.KAM E 42 LGA 2021 AND ANNEXURE-F DATED 20/05/2021 BEARING NO.KAM E 42 LGA 2021 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The petitioners have filed the present petition as a public interest litigation, impugning the orders/notifications dated 18.05.2021 and 20.05.2021 passed by respondent No.2 and the order/notification dated 26.11.2021 passed by respondent No.3 (hereafter referred to as impugned orders). 2. The impugned order dated 18.05.2021 is a notification issued under Section 68(1) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and Rule 96 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, declaring that the subject land (53 acres falling in Survey No.166/P1 of Kambadakone village, Byndoor Taluk, Udupi District) was required for public purpose and that rights of public and all other persons in the subject land would cease. It further informed that any person claiming interest or right in respect to the subject land could file an objection within a period of 30 days from the date of the said notification. 3. In terms of the impugned order dated 20.05.2021, the subject land was converted to industrial zone and reserved for developing the District Industrial Centre. It was notified that the subject land was removed from 'Porambokku' under Section 68(1) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and Form No.27 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. 4. In terms of the impugned o