The court ruled that the concept of 'deemed forest', although undefined in state law, is valid under national legislation, necessitating proper legal scrutiny and just consideration of applications related to forest land use.

ORDER :

D. K. SINGH, J.

Heard Mr. H. Pavana Chandra Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.N.Sudev Hegde, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents-State, extensively.

2. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner impugning the order dated 23.05.2022 passed by the respondent No.2- Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Forest Resource Management), Bengaluru whereby, the petitioner's application for shifting of M/s. Kailash Wood Industries (saw mill) from its present location bearing No.21/5, Gottigere, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru to Survey No.28/1, Maruru Village, Arehalli Hobli, Belur Taluk, Hassan District, has been rejected on the ground that the aerial distance of the proposed site is less than 10 kms. from the boundary of the forest/deemed forest.

3. The petitioner has also approached the Supreme Court by filing I.A.Nos.119396/2025 and 119397/2025 in W.P.(Civil) No.202/1995 in the case of T.N.GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, with the following prayers:

"i. Allow the impleading applicant/ proposed respondent no.12 to be impleaded as a party Respondent in Writ Petition (C) No.202 of 1995 with Writ Petition (C) No.171 of 1996;

ii. Direct the Additional Chief Conservator of Forest to grant a permission to shift the sawmill M/s. Kailash Wood Industry, as per License bearing No.83/2014-15, situated at No.21/5, Gottigere, Bannerghatta Road, Bengaluru, to Survey No.28/I, Marur Village, Arehalli Hobli, Belur Taluk, Hassan District as per order dated 15.02.2021 produced herein as Annexure A-8 and quash the order dated 23.05.2022 passed by the Additional Chief Conservator Forest produced herein as Annexure A-11."

4. Having been informed by the learned Amicus Curiae that the application filed by the petitioner for shifting had already been rejected by the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Bengaluru on 23.05.2022, and the petitioner had made challenge to the said order of the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests in W.P.No.29337/2024 i.e., the present writ petition, the Supreme Court, vide order dated 26.05.2025, was of the view that there was no necessity to pass any order on the applications filed by the petitioner and accordingly, the applications were disposed of. The Supreme Court also observed that the High Court would consider the grievance of the petitioner in the pending writ petition and decide it in accordance with law.

5. Mr. Pavana Chandra Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the impugned order passed by the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, it is observed that the proposed site for shifting of the saw mill is situated within 10 kms of the 'deemed forest' area. The Karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 do not recognise the concept of 'deemed forest' and therefore, the view taken by the respondent No.2 while rejecting the application of the petitioner for shifting of the saw mill is incorrect and against the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and the Rules made thereunder as well as the judgment of this Court dated 12.06.2019 passed in W.P.No.54476/2016 c/w W.P.No.51135/2016.

6. Mr. M.N. Sudev Hegde, learned Additional Government Advocate, however, would submit that in compliance of the order passed by the Supreme Court in W.P.(Civil) No.202/1995 in T.N.GODAVARMAN (supra), the State Government constituted a Two-Member Committee under the Chairmanship of the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forests and the said Committee has identified the deemed forests along with the statutory forests as regards the areas which are 'forest' as per the dictionary de