Summary
Land at Horanadu, Chikmagaluru, was forfeited to the Government in 1892 for revenue arrears, but the family stayed in possession. In 1994 the State transferred the land to the Forest Department for a land bank. When Rule 119(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 was amended in 2000 to allow restoration of forfeited holdings 'not disposed of otherwise' to persons not dispossessed, the respondent applied in time; the Deputy Commissioner rejected the applications and later the Forest Department rejected the claim. The High Court quashed the Forest Department's orders and directed restoration. The Supreme Court dismissed the State's appeal: the 1994 transfer kept the land as revenue land, made the Forest Department a mere custodian and was not a 'disposal', and the finding of continuous possession could not be reopened under Article 136.
Issues
- Whether the transfer of forfeited land by the Government Order of 20.07.1994 to the Forest Department for a land bank amounted to the land being 'disposed of otherwise' so as to exclude restoration under Rule 119(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966.
- Whether a person whose land was forfeited for revenue arrears in 1892 but who continued in uninterrupted possession could claim restoration under the 2000 amendment to Rule 119(2), and whether his earlier unsuccessful challenge to the 1994 Government Order affected that right.
Provisions considered
- Rule 119(1) and 119(2), Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (as amended by the Karnataka Land Revenue (Amendment) Rules, 2001)Sub-rule (2), with effect from 08.09.2000, allowed the Deputy Commissioner for one year to restore any forfeited holding 'which has not been disposed of otherwise' to a person 'who has not been dispossessed', notwithstanding expiry of the three-year period in sub-rule (1). The respondent applied on 30.09.2000 and 05.10.2000, within time; the land had not been disposed of, the Forest Department being only custodian of revenue land, and possession had never been taken from the family, so the conditions for restoration were met. (¶¶ 4, 10, 11, 13, 14, 18)
- Notification of reserved forest (contrasted with the Government Order of 20.07.1994), Karnataka Forest Act, 1963The 1994 order was an executive transfer of 'C' and 'D' category revenue lands to the Forest Department for a land bank, expressly providing that they remain revenue lands, that no notification under the Forest Act could declare them reserved forest and that the Revenue Department could take them back; it was not a Gazette notification under the Forest Act and did not change the status of the land. (¶¶ 12, 13, 17)
Held
- The Government Order of 20.07.1994 transferred the land from one arm of the Government to another for a limited purpose, keeping it as 'C' and 'D' category revenue land and prohibiting any forest notification; the Forest Department was thus made custodian of revenue land, and when the respondent's right to apply accrued in 2000 the land had not been 'disposed of' within Rule 119(2). No proceeding ever evicted the respondent or his predecessors or handed vacant possession to the Forest Department. (¶¶ 13, 14)
- The respondent's failed writ challenge to the 1994 Government Order in 2006 is inconsequential: the order was a common order for a vast extent of land which there was no need to assail, since on restoration his land would cease to be covered by it and the Forest Department could neither object nor claim possession; he had merely put the cart before the horse, and the Single Judge had left his remedy before the Deputy Commissioner open. (¶ 14)
- The earlier order of 26.06.2012, which attained finality, recorded on the Deputy Commissioner's own findings and the Tehsildar's report that the respondent continued in possession — the basic criterion for Rule 119(2) — and directed reconsideration; the Forest Department's intervention in disregard of that order was impermissible. The High Court having found on the record that possession remained with the respondent throughout, that factual finding cannot be reappreciated within the limited scope of Article 136; the land must be judged as it stood in 2000, not by present tree growth. (¶¶ 9, 15, 16, 17, 18)
Result
Appeal dismissed; the Karnataka High Court's judgment of 17.07.2019 in Writ Appeal No. 2319 of 2018 affirming the Single Judge's order of 13.09.2017 quashing the Forest Department's order of 19.08.2013 and notice of 16.09.2013 and directing restoration of Survey No. 170, Horanadu village, to the respondent under Rule 119(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, upheld. No order as to costs.