Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 27409

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.G.S. Kamal, J
Smt. R.H. Usha – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Writ Petition No.16732 of 2023 (GM-FOR)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners:Uday Holla, Senior Advocate for Ajith A. Shetty, Advocate
For the Respondents: Kiran V. Ron, AAG for R.A. Machakannur, AGA

Land notified as 'Government Plantation' under 1896 and 1901 notifications cannot be treated as 'State Forest' or 'Reserved Forest' under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, as the notifications did not comply with the mandatory requirement of declaring it as 'State Forest'.

Headnote:(A) Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 - Sections 64A, 64A(3), 23 - Mysore Forest Regulation (XI of 1900) - Sections 23, 30 - Rules for the Administration of Forests, Wastelands in the Territories of His Highness the Maharaja of Mysore 1878 - Rules 1, 9 - Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - Section 2 - Constitution of India - Articles 14, 226, 227 - The court held that the notifications dated 29.05.1896 and 07.01.1901 did not declare the subject land as 'State Forest' but only as 'Government Plantation', and thus the land could not be treated as reserved forest under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. The earlier decision in W.P.No.7200/2008, which held that such notifications were invalid for not complying with the requirement of declaring land as 'State Forest', was binding and applicable to the present case. (Paras 12-46)

(B) Precedent - Binding nature - Stare decisis - Judicial discipline - The principle of stare decisis requires courts to follow binding precedents. Where a coordinate bench has already determined the classification of land notified under the same notifications, the benefit of that determination cannot be denied to similarly situated persons, lest it offend Article 14 of the Constitution. (Paras 39, 44)

(C) Forest - Plantation - Distinction - The term 'Forest' refers to a natural habitat and ecosystem, while 'Plantation' is generally man-made. The notifications in question classified the land as 'Government Plantation' and not as 'State Forest', and the two terms are not interchangeable. (Paras 32-34)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed ownership of 4 acres 20 guntas in Sy.No.143 of Machohalli Village, Bengaluru, purchased in 2000 from the original grantee's successors. The forest department initiated proceedings under Section 64A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, alleging the land was part of a 'Reserve Forest Area' based on notifications dated 29.05.1896 and 07.01.1901. The Assistant Conservator of Forests passed an order on 17.10.2022 holding the land to be forest land and directing removal of encroachment. The appellate authority confirmed this order on 30.06.2023. The petitioner challenged these orders, relying on an earlier judgment in W.P.No.7200/2008 which had held the same notifications to be invalid. The state argued that the earlier judgment was confined to Kadugodi plantation and that new documents (notification dated 25.03.1881 and proclamation dated 02.04.1881) would have changed the outcome.

Findings of Court:
The court set aside both impugned orders. It held that: (i) The notifications dated 29.05.1896 and 07.01.1901 only classified the land as 'Government Plantation', not as 'State Forest'; (ii) The earlier decision in W.P.No.7200/2008, confirmed in appeal, was binding and applied to the present case as both lands were notified under the same notifications; (iii) Even if the new documents had been produced, they would not have altered the finding that the essential requirement of declaring the land as 'State Forest' was not complied with; (iv) The state's records did not evidence that Machohalli plantation was classified and maintained as 'State Forest'. (Paras 29-38, 45)

Issues: The main issues were (i) whether the respondents were justified in holding the subject land to be forest land in light of the earlier judgment in W.P.No.7200/2008 which declared the notifications invalid; and (ii) whether the production of the notification dated 25.03.1881 and proclamation dated 02.04.1881 would have resulted in upholding the notifications. (Para 11)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that under the relevant rules and regulations, for land to constitute 'State Forest' or 'Reserved Forest', it must have been declared as such under the relevant provisions. The notifications in question only declared the land as 'Government Plantation', not as 'State Forest'. The earlier binding precedent established that the notifications were not rule-compliant and did not have the effect of declaring the land as 'State Forest'. The court also held that judicial discipline requires adherence to binding precedents. (Paras 33-38, 44) Result : Writ petition allowed. Orders dated 17.10.2022 and 30.06.2023 set aside. (Para 47)

Table of Content
1. petitioner challenges forest department orders alleging land encroachment. (Para 1 , 2)
2. state contends land is reserved forest under historical notifications. (Para 3 , 4)
3. parties argue over validity of 1896/1901 notifications and precedent. (Para 5 , 6)
4. court analyzes notifications, finds land is 'government plantation' not 'state forest'. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)
5. writ petition allowed; impugned orders set aside. (Para 47)

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 11.03.2026 FOR ORDERS, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THIS COURT, MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

CAV ORDER

This writ petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

(i) Issue a writ of certiorari thereby setting aside the impugned order dated 30.06.2023 passed by the first respondent authority in the appeal filed by the petitioner herein under Section 64A (3) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (Act for brevity) vide Appeal No.361/2022-23 as per Annexure-A.

(ii) Issue a writ of certiorari, thereby setting aside the impugned order dated 17.10.2022 passed by respondent No.2-authority in proceeding bearing reference No. ¸ÀD¸ÀA/¨ ÉAGG«/D¥ÀæzÉÃ±À/MvÀÄÛª Àj/512/2022-23, under Section 64A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, as regards land bearing Sy.No.143, to an extent of 4 acres 20 guntas of Machohalli Village, Bengaluru North Taluk, as per Annexure-B, and

(iii) grant such other relief/s as would be deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court to be granted under the facts and circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Brief facts of the case are:

2.1 That the land bearing Sy.No.143, measuring 4 acres 20 guntas situated at Machohalli Village, Bangalore North Taluk (hereinafter referred to as `subject land') originally owned by one K.V.Narayanamurthy, he having been granted the same in terms of a Grant Order dated 19.11.1979. The said land was demarcated by the Assistant Director of Land Records vide order bearing No.ADLRDPRA 17/80-81. After the expiry of non-alienation period, the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban, granted permission to alienate the said land by order dated 11.01.1995.

2.2 That on 30.03.1995, one Mrs.Vydehi purchased an extent of 2 acres from K.V.Narayanamurthy from and out of portion of subject land. Thereafter on 23.12.1995, Mr.H.Mahadeva, the father of said Mrs.Vydehi, purchased the balance extent of 2 acres 20 guntas of subject land from said K.V.Narayanamurthy.

2.3 Petitioner purchased the entire extent of 4 acres 20 guntas of subject land from aforesaid Mr.H.Mahadeva and Mrs.Vydehi in terms of two deeds of sale dated 26.09.2000. Name of the petitioner has been mutated in the revenue records. The petitioner thus has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject land. Petitioner has leased out subject land to a Trust known and called as "Shri Vani Education Center" which has been established for the purpose of imparting education and to carry on allied activities.

2.4 Things stood thus, respondent No.4 initiated the proceedings against the petitioner in Forest Case No.17 of 2016-17, alleging that the subject land was a part of "Reserve Forest Area" and that the petitioner had violated the provisions of Sections 24(g), 24(gg), 24(h), 73, 78, 82(b), 104 and 104(c) of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. Consequently, Respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order dated 17.10.2022 holding that the subject land formed part of the notified forest and that the petitioner was in unauthorized occupation of the same, and has consequently called upon the petitioner to remove the encroachment.

2.5 That the appeal filed by the petitioner, before the respondent No.1 -appellate authority, has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 30.06.2023 confirming the order passed by the respondent No.2.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 27409

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAM.G.S. Kamal, JSmt. R.H. Usha – AppellantVersusState of Karnataka – RespondentWrit Petition No.16732 of 2023 (GM-FOR)

Land notified as 'Government Plantation' under 1896 and 1901 notifications cannot be treated as 'State Forest' or 'Reserved Forest' under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, as the notifications did not comply with the mandatory requirement of declaring it as 'State Forest'.

Cases Referred (13)

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.G.S. Kamal, J
Smt. R.H. Usha – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Writ Petition No.16732 of 2023 (GM-FOR)