The main legal point established in the judgment is that the right to seek restoration of forfeited property under Rule 119 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, is available if the property was not disposed of as contemplated under sub-rule (2) to Rule 119 of Rules 1966, and if the possession of the property remained with the claimant throughout.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. Bopanna, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17.07.2019 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Appeal No. 2319 of 2018 (KLR-RES). Through the said judgment, the Division Bench has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants herein. The intra-court appeal before the Division Bench was filed by the appellants, assailing the order dated 13.09.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of that Court, in W.P. No. 46003/2013 (KLR-RES). The learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent herein and had quashed the communication that was impugned at Annexure M and N to the writ petition. Consequently, direction was issued to the appellants herein to withdraw the land belonging to the respondent which was transferred to the Forest Department and restore the same to the appellant in terms of sub-rule (2) to Rule 119 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (for short, 'Rules 1966').

3. The brief facts necessary to be noted for the disposal of this appeal are; the respondent claims to have succeeded to the property bearing Survey No. 170 measuring 45.01 acres situated in Horanadu village, Kasaba Hobli, Mudigere Taluk, Chikmagaluru District. The said property is claimed to have been purchased by his ancestors, namely, Bhima Jois, son of Venkatasubba Jois of Horanadu Village in a public auction held on 10.12.1887. The ancestors of the respondent and thereafter, the respondent who succeeded to the property, claim to have continued in uninterrupted possession of the said property. However, the land revenue having not been paid, the property was forfeited to the Government during 1892. Though that was the position, the property remained in the possession and enjoyment of the family even after such forfeiture and they continued to enjoy it. To that effect, the Khetwar extract for Survey No. 170 (Old Survey No. 132) of the year 1919 is produced in the writ petition and relied upon by the respondent.

4. When this was the position, through notification no. RD 50 LGP 96 dated 07.09.2000 the Government amended sub-rule (2) to Rule 119 of the Rules 1966 providing for restoration of the forfeited property, if such application is made during a period of not more than one year from the date of the commencement of the amendment i.e. within one year from 08.04.2000. The said benefit was granted notwithstanding the expiry of the period allowed under sub-rule (1) to that Rule. The appellant taking benefit of the said amendment filed the applications on 30.09.2000 and 05.10.2000 seeking for restoration, which were well within the time prescribed. When the said applications had not received consideration, the respondent was before the High Court in W.P. No. 11334/2007 seeking for a direction to consider the applications. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition on 24.07.2007 with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner to dispose of the applications filed by the respondent.

5. On consideration, the applications came to be rejected by order dated 27.11.2009. The respondent claiming to be aggrieved by such rejection, filed another writ petition in W.P. No. 36324/2009 (KLR-RES). The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 26.06.2012 quashed the order dated 27.11.2009 impugned therein and directed the Deputy Commissioner to consider the applications afresh on merits, by taking into consideration reports of the Assistant Commissioner and Tehsildar, as also the observations contained in the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 26.06.2012. However, contrary to the directions issued, the claim of the respondent was negatived by the order dated 19.08.2013 passed by the Additional Chief Conservator of Forest. The Forest Department also issued notice dated 16.09.2013 based on the said order, which were assailed in W.P. No. 46003/2013 (KLR-RES). The learned Single Judge having taken note of all these aspects of the matter allowed the writ petition by