There Cannot Be Any 'Deemed Forest' Under The Forest Conservation Act: Karnataka High Court Reiterates
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that a land can either be a "forest" or a "forest land", but there cannot be any "deemed forest" in absence of any provision under the Forest Conservation Act. A division bench Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Ashok S Kinagi while allowing a petition filed by one DM Deve Gowda said, "This Court, vide judgment and order dated...
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that a land can either be a "forest" or a "forest land", but there cannot be any "deemed forest" in absence of any provision under the Forest Conservation Act.
A division bench Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Ashok S Kinagi while allowing a petition filed by one DM Deve Gowda said,
"This Court, vide judgment and order dated 12.06.2019 passed in W.P.No.54476/2016 (GM-MM-S) C/w W.P.No.51135/2016 (Dhananjay vs. State of Karnataka and others), has categorically held that there is no concept of "deemed forest"".
The Court was of the view that the land can either be a "forest" or a "forest land", but there cannot be any "deemed forest" in absence of any provision under the Act.
The petitioner had approached the court seeking to quash the order and endorsement issued by the Deputy Conservator of Forest (Chikkamagaluru division). Further it was sought to issue directions to the respondent to permit him to do stone quarrying in his land and to issue a quarrying licence.
The bench noted that there is consensus between the counsel for the petitioner and the Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents that the case of Dhananjay (supra) squarely covers the controversy involved in the present writ petition.
Following which the bench said, "In this view of the matter, we deem it appropriate to allow this writ petition without calling for any statement of objections from the respondents as the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Dhananjay (supra) holds good."
The court while quashing the orders passed by the authority, directed the respondents to consider the application made by the petitioner for grant of the quarrying licence/lease or the renewal thereof, within two months, in light of Dhananjay (supra).
The bench clarified that, "While considering the applications afresh, the concerned authority will have to consider whether the subject lands are "forest" or "forest land" as laid down in the decision of the Apex Court in T N GODAVARMAN vs Union of India and others, (1997), 2 SCC 267."
It added, "If the authority concerned finds that the land is a "forest" or a "forest land", lease or extension of lease cannot be granted unless the consent of the Central Government is obtained as per section 2 of the Forest Act."
Case Title: D M Deve Gowda v. The Principal Chief Conservator of Forests
Case No: WP 10502/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 227
Date of order: 21-06-2022
Appearance: Advocate Vinod Gowda for petitioner; AGA S S Mahendra for respondents