THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. versus G. RAMANARAYANA JOSHI

Citation: [2022] 4 S.C.R. 128 · Decided: 17-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
128
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.
v.
G. RAMANARAYANA JOSHI
(Civil Appeal No. 4117 of 2022)
MAY 17, 2022
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Karnataka Land Revenue Rule, 1966: r. 119(2) – Restoration
of forfeited occupancy or alienated holding on payment of the
arrear due – Property purchased in a public auction by the
respondent’s ancestor in the year 1887 – Said property forfeited to
the State Government in the year 1892 for non-payment of land
revenue however, respondent remained in possession – In the year
1994 by a Government order, certain land transferred to the Forest
Department and the land in issue was a part of that land – In 2000,
the Government amended r.119(2) providing for the restoration of
the forfeited property except those lands which are disposed of
otherwise by the government – Application u/r. 119(2) by the
respondent – However, application not considered - Respondent
then filed a writ petition before the Single Judge which was allowed
and was upheld by the Division Bench – On appeal, held:
Government order was not in nature of Gazette notification under
Karnataka Forest Act to notify the land as reserved forest – It is
clear from the preamble of the order that if the land is required for
the public purpose and for the government itself, the Revenue
department may take back this lands from the land bank – Therefore,
as on the date when the right accrued to the respondent to make an
application seeking restoration, the status of the property was the
same and the transfer was only from the Revenue Department of
the Government to the Forest Department of the same Government
i.e., from one arm to another – Forest department was made custodian
of the revenue land for a limited purpose – Thus, as on the date
when the respondent had made an application it cannot be construed
that the land had been disposed of as contemplated u/r. 119(2) –
Respondent continued with the possession all the time and land
was never made over to the Forest Department or forfeited – Order
of the Single Judge of the High Court which attained finality refers
to the documents which indicate possession over the property by
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 128
128
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
129
the respondent – Thus, the High Court took note that the possession
of the property remained with the respondent throughout would
satisfy the requirement to claim restoration u/r. 119(2).
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The document of the year 1919 at Annexure-A
to W.P. No.36324/2009 would disclose that the property originally
was a privately owned property in the name of BJ, under whom
the respondent is claiming right and title to the property. The
property which is said to have been purchased in the public
auction by the ancestors of the respondent was forfeited to the
Government on 23.08.1892 for non-payment of arrears of land
revenue. One aspect of the matter is with regard to the
predecessor of the respondent having continued to be in
possession of the property and thereafter succeeded to by the
respondent. On that aspect, the finding of fact recorded by the
competent authority and noted by the High Court would be
relevant since it would not be open for reappreciation in the
limited scope under Article 136 of the Constitution, in a petition
of the present nature. [Para 9][136-D-F]
1.2 By the amendment to sub-rule (2) by way of substitution
with effect from 08.09.2000 the final effect is that an application
was required to be filed within one year from the date of
substitution, which was filed by the respondent on 30.09.2000
and 05.10.2000, seeking restoration. [Para 11][137-E]
1.3 The property which is the subject matter of this
proceeding was also a part of the total extent of 2.58 lakh hectares
which was transferred to the Forest Department for formation of
land bank through the Government Order dated 20.07.1994. [Para
12][137-F]
1.4 It was submitted by the appellant that the right was not
available to the respondent to seek restoration since the
Government Order dated 20.07.1994 transferring the land to
Forest Department will amount to disposal of the forfeited land
and sub-rule (2) excludes the land “disposed of otherwise” from
being considered for restoration. A perusal of the Government
Order would indicate that it is not in the nature of a Gazette
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS. v. G. RAMANARAYANA
JOSHI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
130
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
notification invoking power u

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.