Karnataka High Court
WP/22279/2023 of ASHOKA BUILDCON LIMITED Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 11 October 2023
2023:KHC:36969-DB WP No. 22279 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT WRIT PETITION NO. 22279 OF 2023 (GM-MM_S) BETWEEN: 1. ASHOKA BUILDCON
Digitally signedby SHARADAVANI BLocation: HIGHCOURT OFKARNATAKA
NC: 2023:KHC:36969-DBWP No. 22279 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11[TH] DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT -WRIT PETITION NO. 22279 OF 2023 (GMMM_S)
BETWEEN:
1. ASHOKA BUILDCON LIMITED ASHOKA NAGAR, ASHOKA MARG, ASHOKA NAGAR, NASHIK 422 011, MAHARASHTRA, ASHOKA NAGAR, ASHOKA MARG, ASHOKA NAGAR, NASHIK 422 011, MAHARASHTRA, A COMPANY DULY REGISTERED AND INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT AND AND INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT AND
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR VELUPILLAI RAMABALAKRISHNANAN MR VELUPILLAI RAMABALAKRISHNANAN
2. ASHOKA BANWARA BETTADAHALLI ROAD PRIVATE LIMITED., ROAD PRIVATE LIMITED., ASHOKA NAGAR, ASHOKA MARG, ASHOKA NAGAR, NASHIK 422 011, MAHARASHTRA, MAHARASHTRA, A COMPANY DULY REGISTERED AND INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT AND INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT AND
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED SIGNATORY MR VELUPILLAI RAMABALAKRISHNANAN MR VELUPILLAI RAMABALAKRISHNANAN
ALSO AT VELUPPILLAI RAMABALAKRISHNAN, S/O S VELU PILLAI, S/O S VELU PILLAI, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT D 304, SFS 407, KHB COLONY, YELEHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU – 560 064. HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 257, 1[ST] FLOOR, R/AT D 304, SFS 407, KHB COLONY, YELEHANKA NEW TOWN, BENGALURU – 560 064. HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 257, 1[ST] FLOOR,
NC: 2023:KHC:36969-DB
WP No. 22279 of 2023
SATYA HERITAGE 8[TH] CROSS, 13[TH] MAIN (OPP PARK), E-BLOCK, SAHAKARA NAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 092.
(BY SRI. GIRIDHAR S V.,ADVOCATE)
…PETITIONERS
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS BY ITS PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, 4[TH] FLOOR, ARANYA BHAVAN, 18[TH] CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU 560 003. DEPARTMENT OF FORESTS BY ITS PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, 4[TH] FLOOR, ARANYA BHAVAN, 18[TH] CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU 560 003.
2. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR FORESTS CHICKAMAGALUR RANGE, CHIKAMAGALUR DIVISION, KARNATAKA – 577 101. CHICKAMAGALUR RANGE, CHIKAMAGALUR DIVISION, KARNATAKA – 577 101.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, KANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE 560 001. DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, KANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD, SESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE 560 001.
4. SENIOR GEOLOGIST DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, CHIKKAMAGALURU, KARNATAKA – 511 010. DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, CHIKKAMAGALURU, KARNATAKA – 511 010.
5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CHICKAMAGALUR DISTRICT, CHICKAMAGALUR- 577 101. AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CHICKAMAGALUR DISTRICT, CHICKAMAGALUR- 577 101.
(BY SRI.S S MAHENDRA.,AGA FOR R1 TO 5)
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR THE RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT No. 2 AND 4 WITH REGARD TO THE PASSING OF THE ORDER IMPUGNED AS AT ANNEXURE V AND W RESPECTIVELY AND B) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, SIMILAR WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION AND QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT No.2, BEARING REFERENCE No. REFERENCE No. B5/WRIT PETITION No. 8141/2023 (GM-FOREST)/CR-11/2023-2024 DATED 28.08.2023 REGARDING THE REFUSAL TO ISSUE THE NOC-TO THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT TO THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY VIDE ANNEXURE-V AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
2
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
1. Petitioners are knocking at the doors of the Writ Court for assailing the endorsement dated 28.08.2023, a copy whereof avails at Annexure-V whereby, the 2[nd]respondent - Deputy Conservator of Forests has declined to issue the No Objection Certificate which is a sine qua non for favourably considering the application for the grant/renewal of quarrying lease.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argues that the subject endorsement is structured on an erroneous assumption that the land comprised in the subject application for the renewal of quarrying lease is a part of “Deemed Forest”, when it is not. He drew our attention to the report of the Range Forest Officer and a Co-ordinate Bench decision of this
Court in W.P No.54476/2016 c/w W.P No.51135/2016 between Dhananjay vs. State disposed off on 12.06.2019. He seeks to demonstrate error apparent on the face of the record and thereby prays for the quashment of impugned order.
3. Learned Additional Government Advocate, on request appearing for the officials respondents opposes the petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the reasons on which it has been structured.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, we decline indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
(a) In the impugned endorsement the 2[nd]respondent – DCF, inter alia, having considered the report of the Range Forest Officer has specifically stated that the subject land in Survey Nos.67 & 68 which in all measures 104A – 04G has been stated to be a part of the forest in the affidavit submitted to the Apex Court. Added, there is a statutory Notification issued by the Government on 05.05.2022 enlisting the subject lands of Sadarahalli Village as the forest lands.
(b) Learned AGA is right in submitting that the exercise undertaken by the 2[nd] respondent – DCF has a statutory favour in the light of the Apex Court decisions in series rendered in T.N.GODAVARMAN THIRUMULPAD, In re vs UNION OF INDIA, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 716 wherein para 25 reads as under:
“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 conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith, must apply to all forests 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 recognised forests, 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 matters connected therewith must apply clearly to all forests so understood irrespective of the ownership or
classification thereof. … We consider it necessary to reiterate this settled position emerging from the decisions of this Court to dispel the doubt, if any, in the perception of any State Government or authority. This has become necessary also because of the stand taken on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, even at this late stage, relating to permissions granted for mining in such area which is clearly contrary to the decisions of this Court. It is reasonable to assume that any State Government which has failed to appreciate the correct position in law so far, will forthwith correct its stance and take the necessary remedial measures without any further delay.”
The impugned order made by the 2[nd] respondent who is a high ranking IFS official broadly accords with the inner voice of the observations. It hardly needs to be stated that the power this Court exercises under Articles 227, the other provision namely, Article 226 employed in the pleadings ornamentally, is not of Appellate Authority and therefore, we cannot adjudge the mixed question of law & fact as to whether a particular land is comprised in a forest (as broadly explained by the Apex Court) by reappreciating the evidence which has been duly considered by the statutory Authority. After all, the focal point of judicial review is the decision making process and not the decision itself. A perusal of the material on record and more particularly, the contents of the impugned order do not warrant any deeper examination of the matter.
(c) The vehement submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the observations of the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in DHANANJAYsupra would come to the aid of his clients in demonstrating that the subject land is not part of the forest, is bit difficult to countenance. In the said decision, there is profitable discussion about the term ‘deemed forest’ not figuring in the legal literature and that it is “foreign to the law”, is true. However, that per se does not advance the case of the petitioners more particularly when the substance of the impugned order treats the subject lands as being part of ‘forest’ although the wrong terminology that is ‘deemed forest’ is inadvertently employed therein. It hardly needs to be stated that the law is not a slave of dictionary. What we are construing is not the statute but, an order made by the Statutory Authority presumably having the accumulated wisdom in the field. A Writ Court cannot substitute its opinion for that of the Competent Authorities. Viewed from that angle petitioner, we cannot much bank upon the documents in Annexure-Q series which comprise of the aerial map, joint survey maps, Google maps & mahazar report to falter the impugned order which is well structured. There is scope for improvement even in heaven, is beside the point.
In the above circumstances, this writ petition being devoid of merits is liable to be and accordingly dismissed.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/- JUDGE
Snb/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10