High Court Karnataka High Court

H K Raju vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
H K Raju vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 March, 2008
Author: Ajit J Gunjal
E    Rep:-muted by its A I E
"  Dcpartmentof _: . - '

IN

THE HIGH ooum op' KARNATMQ A-_T BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 19:!» DAY 01?   T E 

1:sr:1«'o1.::a;1..n.n.auDna1uat1y.  ;

 8_tate_ofKnrnataka, %

E Rcv<:nL_xe',V1dham.Soudha. __ 

D 1' EJdl\CIL
13H.-Iulslflflll. C



N3

§'.I|

_Ch

.»;~h.-3  ev-
' .F'or encroachment eviction and
Reha._bflit.e1tion of evacuees from
    
 .. Forest, represented by its
 _ Chairmm, The %puty
 Commissioner of C ,
 Deputy Commissioner Oflioe,

. Chief   Forest,

State of Karnataka.
Ananda Rao Circle,

B'=...L1,,...¢='=-'om.

fiistrict Forest Ofiioer,
Chikamagalur District,
Chilcamagalur.

Deputy Commissioner,
Chikamagalur.

A uaaicli-nnf ('nrnnn in-nihnhm '-
I I331-81 U2-LII: 'V-J'\lHIIHl§§I-\luI.'..LlIl' V

Dcpartlnent of Revenue;  '  

Chikamagalur*E§ang:e, " « .1:

T C mj;:[.o * 

  A  .
Muc1igcreT'T'ofav;1,'1._ _  _
 " < 
Refige  Offioer,  :
Survey» 

% k%    . Division.

f'1uav| are 3 #4-a_..-I
MJKIIIIIIIJ UIKIC

" Chika;1;£-galoze.

113.. a.,x 'D II
[D c:u.1:J. V.

-

.-u.-I.l.J’I_..__g A (‘I A I
u.-Iuuumsu , nun;

This writ petition is tiled under Article 225mg
227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to .
that the o_et.:i_on of the Autnotitlee in dem_;metjn%’
petitioner’s land as forest zone to be t’

This writ petition coming on AA
this (lay, me QoI.J_rt ma_.t_1e tt1_efo_ouring;”». =

owners in possession Blocks No.
24 and 31 Kundur village,
Mudigere.Tatfl1t; It is submitted
that was to

Revenue rL.’F€?§:_’E|’.:””‘”.uut”iI1’|’.’._%?[“‘u£’ time in the 1964 ‘”16

V. n_ to the boundaries and demarcation

out in the year 2007. Initially, the

Lieznoxoauon, mey were 11:.!;a:.b1_t1.a._.. i

in occupation of the Forestland, but

‘*1_- I;’E__-____-._

~. A. ‘I……._.I… IL. 2.. A.’I_…_ __._…._ ._.I.’ A._’I__ __4I_2A,2_*_-__ .I.I_._A._
2l.l’..’., ill H1105. ll. 13 LLIU C853 01 L116 PCUHDIICIW Illa!-

” they are cultivating cofi’ce and pepper in the said block.

The grievance of the petitioners is that some persons, 1)

,_fl/’

who are to be rehabilitated in some other place, are riot

:__’I:____’: 4.- :._1-.. –_ 4.1.- __:.l 1_…..’|_. ……..I ……………4. ‘i.~…V”-
1′ ICU. U LHKC up U15 E! U. IHIIU5 H11″ Hlll.

accommodated in Sy.No. 202. The appuehensitinlioil *

petitioners is that they are likelyjto

those displaced persons are likely to 7f

I’ __,,,,, /’1.’ “Q;4_

the 8* respondents? Dlsiziét rctee.

SLO

Level Coimnittee iijdicate in any way that the

petitioners are V_:1ik.e’ly displaced and the lands in

‘V”‘thei1°’:..r.Sossession be allotted to other persons. In

” the writ petition is premature

. rs n-n 1-nnnrtl fn nlnnnu I-I111!-
l.«l\-r-L3 l.’aIi:I_. I-ol.I\.Il\a mt: L.I.uu..I-I-515 \JJ.J. Auuvsu uu I:u..svIv mans.

has happened. indeed it is always

it ribr the petitioners to protect their possession, if

“if are in possession, having recourse to other remedy

“available to them. ,…

With this observation, petition stands disposed of.”

All contentions are lefl: open.

4. Mr.B.V.Mura1idhar, lcarm-._dA A

Government Advocate appearing *7)

permitted to tile memo of appcai’aim¢