Mandatory to recompense the loss of forest land to the aggrieved: Karnataka High Court

 : 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA THE HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI WRIT PETITION No.12038 2020... PETITIONERS SRI K.A. RAVI CHENGAPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S O. K.N. AIYAMMA THE PRESIDENT OF CAUVERY SENE1ST FLOOR SUMUKH COMPLEX CHICKPET MADIKERI 571 201 KODAGU DISTRICT. SRI. C.C. DEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S O. LATE C.U. CHENGAPPA R O. BITTANGALA VILLAGE AND POST VIRAJPET TALUK 571 218. KODAGU DISTRICT. BY SRI. K.S. BHEEMAIAH ADVOCATE) THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE MULTISTORY BUILDING BENGALURU 560 001. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KODAGU DISTRICT MADIKERI 571 201. CHIEF SECRETARY FOREST ENVIRONMENT AND ECOLOGY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA : 2 : VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE 560 001. PRL. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST ARANYA BHAWAN 18TH CROSS MALLESWARAM BANGALORE 560 003. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST MADIKERI DIVISION MADIKERI ARANYA BHAWAN KODAGU DISTRICT 571 201. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE 560 001. BY SMT.VANI H. ADDL. GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) ... RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R 1 AND 2 TO TRANSFER THE REVENUE ENTRIES IN THE NAME OF THE FOREST DEPARTMENT OF KODAGU DISTRICT IN RESPECT OF THE LAND TO THE EXTENT OF 11 722.29 HECTARES OF C AND D CATEGORY OF LAND IN KODAGU DISTRICT AS COMMUNICATION MADE BY THE R 2 TO THE RESPONDENT NO.1 LETTER DATED 26.06.2012 AT ANNEXURE B. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY NAGARATHNA J. MADE THE O R D E R This writ petition is filed in Public Interest. Petitioner No.1 is stated to be the President of a voluntary organization Cauvery Sene Kodagu District which is engaged in the welfare of the people of Kodagu : 3 : District while petitioner No.2 is a person who is engaged in fighting for good causes in the District of Kodagu and has joined hands with petitioner No.1 for a public cause. It is the case of the petitioners that an extent of land measuring 11 722.29 Hectares of C and D category have not been physically handed over by the Revenue including respondent No.2 to the Forest Department by entering the name of the Forest Department in the revenue records pursuant to Government Order No.RD 106 LGP 88 dated 20.07.1994. Hence a direction is sought in that regard. the petitioners the Harangi Dam Reservoir built during 1970’s is located near Hudgur Village Somwarpet Taluk Kodagu District which is about 9 kms. away from Kushalnagar Town. The Harangi Dam is situated in the Western Ghats of Kodagu District which is a catchment area of Harangi River which is about 717 kms. in length. The Harangi river ultimately emerges with Cauvery River in Kodagu District near Kudige in Somwarpet Taluk. 4. While constructing the Harangi Dam Reservoir the State Government had released 900 acres of land from : 4 : the Yadavanadu forest area and 3000 acres from the Atturu forest area as per the Government Order No.AFD 71FGL 72 dated 12.05.1972 in order to rehabilitate the persons who had lost their lands on account of the construction of Harangi Dam Reservoir Project. In exchange of the said land the State Government ordered that 18 000 acres of land of Revenue Department shall be handed over to the Forest Department by Proceedings of the Government of Mysore dated 12.05.1972in pursuance of the Government Orders dated 12.05.1972 and 20.07.1994. 9. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri K.S.Bheemaiah and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents and perused the material on record. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the averments made by the petitioners in the writ petition supported by the orders of the State Government : 7 : would clearly indicate that an extent of 11.722.29 Hectares of C and D lands have been transferred from the Revenue Department to the Forest Department. There is no dispute with regard to the said fact. All that the petitioners are seeking is the said transfer be completed by entering the name of the Forest Department in the official records and by taking all incidental and ancillary steps for completely handing over the control of the said lands to the Forest Department by the Revenue Department. He submitted that even after lapse of over four decades and nearing half a century the respondent State and its Authorities have not given effect to their own orders. 11. He submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T.N.Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India and Others2 SCC 267] and several other decisions have emphasized the need to not only preserve but enhance the forest area in the Country. When the State Government has taken a categorical decision and passed orders dated 12.05.1972 as well as 20.07.1994 for the purpose of handing over 11.722.29 Hectares of C and D lands to the Forest Department in order to compensate the for construction of the Harangi : 8 : Dam Reservoir Project second respondent and all other Authorities ought to have complied with the said orders of the State Government. Therefore a direction may be issued in that regard. 12. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents Authorities did not contradict the orders passed by the State Government on 12.05.1972 as well as on 20.07.1994. She however submitted that there has been no formal handing over of the lands to the Forest Department inasmuch as name of the Forest Department has not been indicated in the official record but the Forest Department is at liberty to take charge of the said extent of lands and in that regard appropriate directions may be 13. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the respective parties and we find that the object and purpose of issuance of the Government Orders dated 12.05.1972 and 20.07.1994 must be given effect to and fulfilled inasmuch as in order to recompence the loss of the forest land due to the construction of the Harangi Dam Reservoir Project the State Government in its wisdom transferred totally 11.722.29 Hectares of C and D : 9 : revenue lands to the Forest Department. Ultimately the loss of forest land for the purpose of construction of the project led to the State Government to compensate the same and the extent of 11.722.29 Hectares of C and D lands were transferred to the Forest Department but unless and until the said lands are indicated as forest lands in the official records the same would not acquire the status of forest lands. For immediate reference the Government Order dated 12.05.1972 is extracted as under: “ORDER NO.AFD.71 FGL.72 DATED BANGALORE THE 12TH MAY 72. Preamble: In the proceedings of the meeting held in the chambers of the Commissioner for Land Reforms and EX officio Secretary to Government of Mysore. Revenue Department on 7th January 1972 it has been decided that in area of 3 900 acres of Forest land may be released for the resettlement of the expropriated ryots of Harangi Reservoir Project. O R D E R Government is accordingly pleased to release an area of 900 acres of Forest land in Sulebavi area of Yedavanad and 3 000 acres of forest land in Athur Reserve Forests and surrender it to the Revenue Department for being granted to the affected ryots : 10 : under the land grant Rules 1969 subject to the condition that the Revenue Department has to hand over 18 000 acres of land in Coorg District to Forest Department immediately in pursuance of government order No.RD 52 LAD 62 dated 1 8 1964.” In this regard it would be useful to refer to the definition of Forest which has been given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court the case of T.N.Godavarman Thirumulkpad vs. Union of India and Others reported in 1997) 2 SCC 267] under the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act 1980 which is a Central Act. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the expression “forest” must have within its scope and ambit not only forest as understood in the dictionary sense but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership. The provisions of the Forest Conservation Act 1980 for the conservation of forests and the matters connected therewith must apply clearly to all forests so understood irrespective of the ownership or classification thereof. It would be relevant to extract paragraph No.4 of the said judgment which reads as under: “4. The Forest Conservation Act 1980 was enacted with a view to check further deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance and therefore the provisions made therein for the : 11 : conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith must apply to all forest irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof. The word “forest” must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. This description covers all statutorily recognized forest whether designated as reserved protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(i) of the Forest Conservation Act. The term “forest land” occurring in Section 2 will not only include “forest” as understood in the dictionary sense but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership. This is how it has to be understood for the purpose of Section 2 of the Act. The provisions enacted in the Forest Conservation Act 1980 for the conservation of forests and the matter connected therewith must apply clearly to all forests to understood irrespective of the ownership or classification thereof. This aspect has been made abundantly clear in the decisions of this Court in Ambica Quarry Works Vs. State of Gujarat Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra Vs. State of U.P. and recently in the order dated 29.11.1996 to manage generation. One of the viewpoints for sustaining : 18 : forest is a naturally functioning forest ecosystem. This view point takes a man and nature relationship to the point of endorsing to the extent possible the notion of letting forest develop and process without significant human intervention. A strong adoption of the naturalistic value system that whatever nature does is better than what humans do this is almost the “nature dominates man” perspective. Parks and natural reserve creations non intervention in insect disease and fire process and reduction of human activities are typical policy situation. This viewpoint has been endorsed by 1988 Forest Policy of Government of India. Yet another viewpoint recognises the pragmatic reality faced by the governments and the administrative namely trees don’t vote while people do. Some of the criteria reflecting key elements of ecological economic and social sustainability are: Conservation of biological diversity. Maintenance of productive capacity of forest water resources. carbon cycles. Maintenance of forest ecosystem health and Conservation and maintenance of soil and Maintenance of forest contribution to global Maintenance and enhancement of long term multiple socioeconomic benefits to meet the needs of societies. Legal institutional and economic framework conservation and : 19 : An expert dealing with principles and applications of forest valuation on the aspect of value of inputs and outcomes and conditions says : “Decision making in forest management requires that we understand the relative values of inputs outcomes and conditions. Cost values for inputs such as labour capital interest supplies legal advice trades and other management activities as well as the market value of existing timber stands are relatively easy to obtain. Outcomes or resulting condition values are more difficult but we need measures of the values of timberland recreation water wild life visual amenities biodiversity services ecological process to help guide management decisions. By understanding market social and other values of forests we can better allocate our scarce and valuable resources to attain the desired mix of outcomes and conditions." The emphasis is on ecosystem management philosophy that has greater emphasis on integration biological diversity and ecological processes. In respect of working economic values of the outcome it is said: real world forest management situations decision makers are faced with several alternatives and potentially large sets of criteria related to the ecological economic and social impacts of these alternatives. It would be : 20 : incomprehensible table that documented every physical biological economic and social outcome and condition resulting from each management alternative. Such information could include outcome levels for water yield sediment production and timber growth population trends for important wild life species recreation use for backcountry and Similarly information on the economic value of these outcomes can be estimated by means of the methods discussed in chapter 8 and added to impact table. To this avalanche of information we could add the impacts on the social well being of local and communities. The forest management analyst can easily overwhelm the decision makers and stakeholders with information." Dealing with fundamental of decision analyses to achieve ecological economic and social goals it is said that what is to be broadly kept in view is: Ecological and environmental goals are important to forest managers landowners and their stakeholders we need information about how decision alternatives affect such goals. These goals can be broadly stated as 1. Maintaining 2. Conservation of biological diversity : 21 : 3. Protecting and enhancing environmental In view of the above mandate of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the second respondent is directed to transfer the revenue entries in respect of 11.722.29 Hectares of C and D lands in the name of the Forest Department of Kodagu District in terms of the Government Orders dated 12.05.1972 and 20.07.1994 and to take all incidental and ancillary steps in that regard. The transfer in the official records in the name of the forest department Kodagu District shall be made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. The Writ Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Parties to bear their respective costs. JUDGE Sd Sd JUDGE 

Summary: It is compulsory for the Government to compensate and rehabilitate those individuals, from whom land has been acquired by the Government in order to execute a Government Project. A division bench comprising of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice JM Khazi, while adjudicating the matter Sri KA Ravi Chengappa v. The Principal Secretary; [WRIT PETITION No.12038/2020 (KLR-RES)], dealt with the issue of compensation to the victims of land grabbing by the Government. The petitioners in the above case contended that an extent of land had not been physically handed over by the revenue department to the petitioners. The case devolves around the fact that, while constructing the Harangi Dam, the State Government had released 900 acres of land from the nearby forest area. As per a government order, in order to rehabilitate the persons who had lost their lands on account of the construction of Harangi Dam/Reservoir Project, a certain amount of land of the Revenue Department was to be handed over to the Forest Department to distribute it amongst those individuals claiming rehabilitation of their land. The grievance of the petitioners ventilated in this Public Interest Litigation is that the government order had not been given effect and they had not yet received their share of the land, despite there being a lapse of four decades. A legal notice was issued to the respondents on behalf of the petitioners for compliance of the aforesaid government order. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that all that the petitioners are seeking is, the said transfer be completed by entering the name of the Forest Department in the official records and by taking all incidental and ancillary steps for completely handing over the control of the said lands to the Forest Department by the Revenue Department. The counsel also submitted that even after lapse of over four decades and nearing half a century, the respondent-State and its Authorities have not given effect to their own orders. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents stated that there has been no formal handing over of the lands to the Forest Department, inasmuch as name of the Forest Department has not been indicated in the official record, but the Forest Department is at liberty to take charge of the said extent of lands and in that regard appropriate directions may be issued.