Govt fails to prove claim over 'forest land'

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: Dismissing an attempt to take over a land that was allotted in 1951, the High Court has said that the State Government has failed to prove that it was forest land. “The burden is on the State Government to prove that the land in question is Forest Land. The aforesaid fact cannot be unilaterally assumed to be true from the respondents,” a division bench of the HC said.

The Department of Forest had approached a division bench of the High Court challenging the order of a single-judge bench passed in 2017. The singlejudge bench had quashed a notice issued by the Department under the Forest (Conservation) Act to one R Shankarappa.

On March 8, 1951, through a Gazette Notification, five acres of land were granted to one B Sundhari at an upset price of Rs 25 per acre at Kenchanahalli village. The Register of Darkhasts and mutation entries were made in her name. The phodi and Tippani extracts as well as the Revision Settlement Akar Bandh were provided i n her name. After her death, the khata of the property was transferred to her son Shivaram Singh.

In 2002, Singh sold the property to Shankarappa. The land was converted for non-agricultural purposes in the same year. An enquiry was held by the Forest Department and it issued a notice to Shankarappa in 2013 that by a notification dated 1896, the land in question was reserved as Forest Land and he was asked to submit documents.

The HC however noted that “Admittedly, the respondents have not taken any action to set at nought the aforesaid documents. In other words, the Grant in favour of the predecessor in title of the petitioner still subsists. It is pertinent to mention here that previously also a notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner responded to the aforesaid notice and submitted the documents in support of his title.

The Deputy Conservator of Forests submitted a report on 29.08.2013 to the Chief Conservator of Forests, in which it was pointed out that the petitioner has submitted the documents of title in support of his claim. However, once again a fresh notice dated 30.11.2013 was issued to the petitioner.”

The Division Bench upheld the order of the single judge bench which had quashed the Department’s notice and said, “The aforesaid notice has been issued in ignorance of the material available on record and suffers from vice and nonapplication of mind. The same, therefore, was rightly quashed in the facts and circumstances of the case by the learned single judge.

On the aforesaid basis, impugned notice cannot be issued to the petitioner. It is also pertinent to note that learned Single Judge has granted the liberty to the appellants that if fresh materials come to surface and if they warrant holding an enquiry, the respondents have been granted liberty to issue notice afresh.”