AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.L. Manjunath, J.—The legality and correctness of the order dated 5-1-2010 passed by the second respondent in Appeal No. 14/2004-05 is called in question in this writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
It is the case of the petitioner that the forest department is contending that the petitioner is in unauthorized cultivation of land measuring 4 acres 50 cents in Sy. No. 130/1 of Jalsur village, Sulya taluk, which is a reserved forest, the authority concerned initiated action for eviction u/s 64(A)(3) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 [for short, the Act]. Aggrieved by the order passed therein, an appeal came to be filed before the appellate authority, which appeal is dismissed by the second respondent in terms of the impugned order. Challenging the same, the present petition is filed.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, on an earlier occasion, Jalsur village panchayat and one B. Ganapathi Bhat, a resident of Jalsur village, had filed writ petitions before this court in WP Nos. 1462 and 3826 of 1969 respectively, wherein a Division Bench of this Court by order dated 5-8-1971 allowed the writ petitions and restricted the divisional forest officer, Mangalore and the forest settlement officer, Mangalore from treating Sy. Nos. 130/1, 129/2, 214/1, 354/1A2, 356/1 and 130/2 of Jalsur village, as reserved forest land, until a notification u/s 17 of the Act is issued by the state government. He further contends that the notification dated 30-10-1985 [copy at Annexure-E to the writ petition], declaring these lands as forest reserved lands, is not in accordance with Section 17 of the Act. He submits that Annexure-E order does not indicate the date on which it would come into effect. He further contends that the description of the boundaries of the survey numbers is also not properly made and Annexure-E cannot be treated as a notification to show that the land in question has been notified as a reserved forest. In the circumstances, he contends that the orders passed by the original authority as well as the appellate authority are not in accordance with law and liable to be set aside.
On a perusal of Annexure-E, this court is of the opinion that both grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner hold no water, for the following reasons. Though the notification dated 30-10-1985 does not mention the date on which the notification would come into effect, the fact remains that the notification dated 30-10-1985 has been published in the official gazette dated 20-12-1990. When the government notification dated 30-10-1985 has been published in the official gazette dated 20-12-1990, it would be inferred as the date for commencement of the notification. Therefore, the first ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner fails.
In so far as the second ground is concerned, on a perusal of Annexure-E, it is clear that how the total extent of 98 acres of land in Jalsur village has been described. It is also given in detail how the lands in those survey numbers run from one station to another station, which covers all the four side boundaries. Therefore, this court is of the opinion that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that boundaries were not fixed and description of boundaries is incorrect and does not tally with Section 17 notification, holds no water. In the circumstance, this court does not see any merits in this writ petition. If the petitioner is cultivating the land in question unauthorizedly, the same cannot be protected by any court of law. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed.