17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE (ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) WRIT PETITION NO. 15511-14 OF 2013 [GM - RES] PIL BETWEEN: 1. Samaj Parivartana Samudaya A Society registered under Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, having its principal office at Ashadeep, Jayanagar Cross, Saptapur, Dharwad 580 001 Karnataka Represented by its Executive Director Sri S.R.Hiremath 2. Sri Deepak.C.N. S/o C.M.Nagaraju, Aged 34 years, Residing at No.723, 13th Cross, 1st Phase, BEL Layout, Bharathi Nagar, Bangalore Karnataka Dr S.L.Pawar S/o Lakshman Rao Pawar Aged 67 years, Residing close to Head Post Office, Ranebennur 581 115 Haveri District Karnataka Sri Raghavendra Kushtagi S/o Venkoba Achar Aged 63 years, Residing at No.2-6-67/70 Manik Prabhu Layout, Near Dental College, Raichur Karnataka

Petitioner No.1

Petitioner No.2

3.

Petitioner No.3

4.

Petitioner No.4

AND: 1. Union of India Through its Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Forests Paryavaran Bhawan, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road New Delhi 110 003

Respondent No.1

18
2. State of Karnataka Through its Chief Secretary Vidhana Soudha Bangalore -560 001 Karnataka Karnataka Public Lands Corporation Represented by its Managing Director 2nd Floor, Deputy Commissioners Office Building, K.G. Road, Bangalore 560 009 Karnataka

Respondent No.2

3.

Respondent No.3

WRIT PETITION FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA The Petitioners above named most respectfully submit as under:1. The short but important question of law that arises for the consideration of this Honble Court in this case is: Is it lawful for our executive Government to deliberately, knowingly and intentionally refuse to act when it is provided with specific, definite and actual information that certain Government lands have been encroached upon by private persons through clandestine, illegal, manipulative, corrupt or fraudulent means? 2. The address of the parties for the purposes of issuance of Court Notice, Summons etc., from this Honble Court is as shown in the cause title and the petitioners may also be served through their counsel, Sri K.V.Dhananjay and Sri Gopala Krishna, Advocates, No.296, Magadi Main Road, Kamakshipalya, Bangalore 560 079. Facts of the case: 3. The Petitioners are filing this Writ Petition in terms of Article 226 of the Constitution of India solely in public interest. The petitioners are aggrieved with the fact of extensive, sustained, clandestine, unbridled and continuing encroachment of

19
public lands in the State of Karnataka. The fact of such encroachment is documented by no less than the Karnataka State Legislature and by the Executive Government of Karnataka. In this regard, the Reports submitted by the Joint Legislature Committee of the Legislature of Karnataka and the subsequent report of the Task Force for Recovery of Public Land and its Protection do prove to a legal certainty that vested interests within the Government are primarily responsible for massive encroachment of Government lands. 4. The aforesaid Reports show that nearly 11,00,000 acres (Eleven Lakh acres) of Government lands have been allowed to be encroached by private persons and vested interests across the State of Karnataka. This estimate is not a mere guess work but is a product of careful verification of the records, enquiry and spot inspection in many cases by the Karnataka Legislature Committee and by a dedicated Task Force appointed by our State Government. Of the 11,00,000 acres (Eleven Lakh acres) of encroached upon Government land, 1,65,796 acres (One Lakh Sixty Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety acres) are forest lands. Of this 1,65,795 acres (One Lakh Sixty Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety Six acres) of forest lands, 1,04,497 acres (One Lakh Four Thousand Four Hundred and Ninety Seven acres) are in the ecologically sensitive Western Ghats in three districts alone. 5. Applying the Government published guidance values (which are often conservative) wherever appropriate, the value of such encroached upon lands has been estimated by the Government Task Force for Recovery of Public Land and its Protection to be around Rs.1,95,000 Crores (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Five Thousand Crores Only). 6. In perspective, a sum of Rs.1,95,000 Crores (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Five Thousand Crores Only) is far larger than the

20
loss estimated to have been caused by corruption involved in the 2G spectrum scam and the illegal mining scam in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. 7. The Petitioners are also filing this petition with a prayer for strict compliance with the Order dated 28-Jan-2011 passed by the Honble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.1132 of 2011 i.e., Jagpal Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others AIR 2011 SC 1123 and in W.P. No.202 of 1995, i.e. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India. It is submitted that vide the said Orders, the Honble Supreme Court had directed that effective steps be taken for the protection of public lands from encroachment, by all States. Despite the aforesaid Order, the State of Karnataka has not merely failed to take effective steps for compliance with the said Order but has intentionally and knowingly disbanded a dedicated task force called The Task Force for Recovery of Public Land and its Protection whose purpose was the same as the direction contained in the aforesaid Orders of the Honble Supreme Court. 8. After the said disbandment, the Petitioners, vide letter dated 25-July-2012 had requested the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka to take urgent and necessary steps for the implementation of the Task Force Report dated 30-Jun-2011. Faced with no response from the Government, the petitioners wrote to the Chief Secretary again on 27-Aug-2012. As of today, the Petitioners have not heard anything in response to their representation to the Government of Karnataka. Faced with this situation, these petitioners have realised that there is no further recourse available to them than to approach this Honble Court. 9. The Petitioner No.1, Samaj Parivartana Samudaya is a Society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 under No.162/83-84 dated 06-Mar-1984. The activities

21
of the Petitioner No.1 encompass different fields such as prevention of pollution in the Tungabhadra River in Karnataka due to lax supervision of polluting industries, safeguarding of common lands, social forestry, wasteland development, the promotion of decentralized nurseries and the conservation and protection of the Western Ghats. The Petitioner No.1 works in close collaboration with many other non-Governmental and humanitarian organisations. Amongst other cases filed in courts, the Petitioner No.1 was the petitioner in Writ Petition (Civil) No.562 of 2009 before the Honble Supreme Court of India bringing to its notice, the fact of widespread and large scale illegal mining in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. Further, the founder of the Petitioner No.1, Sri S.R.Hiremath, was the applicant in IA No.60 in Writ Petition No.202 of 1995 before the Honble Supreme Court. The said IA concerned the forest and tribal issues in the Bastar region of the then Madhya Pradesh (now Chattisgarh). Further, the Petitioner No.1 had also filed Writ Petition No.35 of 1987 seeking restoration and restitution of 75000 acres of forest lands from a joint sector company called Karnataka Pulpwood Limited to the village communities in four districts of Karnataka. In short, the Petitioner No.1 has been working in the arena of environment, forests, good governance and anti-corruption. 10. The Petitioner No.2, Sri Deepak.C.N., is a social activist who has rendered his services to various social awareness programmes. The Petitioner No.2 was involved with Janaagraha, a non-governmental organisation to create awareness among citizens in matters related to governance for over a period of five years. 11. The Petitioner No.3, Dr S.L.Pawar is a doctor of medicine by profession and hails from Ranebennur town in Haveri district. The Petitioner No.3 has served as the Secretary and President

22
of the Indian Medical Association, Ranebennur. The Petitioner No.3 has also served as the President of NEEDS, a nongovernmental organization for four years. 12. The Petitioner No.4, Sri Raghavendra Kushtagi is a social activist and is currently the President This of Hyderabad had Karnataka Janandolana Kendra. organisation

fought for the successful implementation of Article 371 of the Constitution for the four districts of Karnataka i.e., Bidar, Gulbarga, Raichur and Bellary. He is also serving as the Executive of Janasangarama Parishad, a body which has as its aim, the protection of natural resources and other land related issues. 13. The Respondent No.1, the Union of India, is represented by the Ministry of Environment and Forests. This Ministry is the nodal agency in the administrative structure of the Central Government for the planning, promotion, co-ordination and overseeing the implementation of Indias environmental and forestry policies and programmes. It is the solemn duty of the Union of India to oversee the implementation of its policies and programs relating to conservation of the country's natural resources including its lakes and rivers, its biodiversity, forests and wildlife and to ensure the protection of animal life and the prevention and abatement of pollution. 14. The Respondent No.2 i.e., State of Karnataka is the custodian and legal owner of all public lands within the territory of the State of Karnataka. It is the guardian of the common lands which are a common and shared heritage not only of the current citizenry of the State, but of all future citizens. It is the solemn duty of the State to ensure that such common lands are preserved intact and not usurped illegally. The Respondent No.2 is also entrusted with the legal and constitutional duty to ensure strict and effective

23
implementation of the laws already in place to protect and preserve public lands. 15. The Respondent No.3, Karnataka Public Lands Corporation Limited is a body corporate that has been specifically incorporated by the Government of Karnataka with the avowed objective of protecting government lands recovered from encroachment. The fact that a body corporate even came to be established to keep a vigil over formerly encroached upon Government lands itself speaks volumes about the extent of such encroachment. 16. On 17-Jun-2006, the Legislature of Karnataka had appointed a Joint Legislature Committee comprising of 14 MLAs and 6 MLCs under the chairmanship of Sri A.T.Ramaswamy to inquire into and submit a detailed Report on encroachment of Government lands in Bangalore and its adjoining areas. During its tenure, this Joint Legislature Committee (referred to hereinafter as JLC, for short) received 1,101 complaints, conducted 40 meetings, visited 90 sites of encroachments over several days and conducted over 200 internal review meetings. Numerous representations, information, grievance and complaints received by the JLC were promptly registered and enquired into by it. Twenty Eight (28) different departments and statutory bodies were summoned before the JLC and were asked to inform about the various aspects of implementation of cases referred to them by the JLC. 17. After the aforesaid detailed enquiry, the JLC submitted two reports on 01-Feb-2007 and 26-Jul-2007 to the Karnataka Legislature. Original versions of the Joint Legislature Committee reports dated 01-Feb-2007 and 26-Jul-2007 are produced herewith and marked as Annexure - A and Annexure - B respectively.

24
18. The interim and final JLC reports conclude that various State instrumentalities such as the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike which is nothing but the Bangalore Municipal Corporation, the Bangalore Development Authority, City and Town Municipal Councils etc., have grossly and knowingly failed in their legal and statutory duty to protect Government and public lands. Instead, these bodies have found it convenient to express helplessness and have in many cases, acted as active participants, abettors and promoters in land grabbing crimes in tandem with members of organised land grabbers. 19. At this context, it becomes necessary to note the role of one Sri V.Balasubramanian (IAS), Retd. Sri V.Balasubramanian was the adviser to the JLC and had previously held the office of the Additional Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka. Eager to know the model that had been implemented in the neighbouring State of Andhra Pradesh to combat the evil of land grabbing, Sri V.Balasubramanian along with the Secretary for Parliamentary Affairs and Legislation and the Principal Secretary to the Revenue Department had visited the neighbouring State of Andhra Pradesh to study the functioning of the Special Courts established under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982 and the mechanisms adopted by the Hyderabad Urban Development Authority and the Municipal Corporation of Hyderabad for preventing encroachments. Pursuant to the aforesaid study and the JLC report, the Karnataka Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Bill, 2007 was tabled and passed by both the Houses of the Karnataka Legislature, unanimously. Moreover, the Revenue Department had also piloted a legislation for incorporating an amendment to the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (KLR Act) to separately criminalise acts of land grabbing (Section 192-A of the KLR Act).

25
20. Although the JLC did submit very elaborate and detailed reports to the Karnataka Legislative Assembly, the Karnataka Legislative Assembly itself came to be dissolved in 2007 and the JLC accordingly, stood defunct consequent to the imposition of the Presidents rule in the State. Later, upon formation of a newly elected Government, no immediate action was taken to implement the recommendations of the JLC. 21. The JLC Reports: (Note: The word Halli in Kannada means a village and countless city regions in the State still carry the name Halli though such a halli in the heart of say, the city of Bangalore, Mysore or Belgaum is nothing more than a vestige from the past). The following findings from the JLC reports may be noted: 22. An area of 1099 acres of forest land has been encroached by 312 persons in Bangalore Urban District Forest Division. Further, 313 acres of tank bed lands have been similarly encroached upon by 553 persons. The Bannerghatta National Park which spans over 7374 acres has also been encroached by 813 different persons to an extent of 767 acres. 23. Certain real estate businesses in conspiracy with a few builders from Hyderabad have created bogus sale records in respect of forest land in Uttarahalli Manavarathe Kaval Minor Forest and have therefore grabbed 344 acres of pristine forest lands. Out of this grabbed area, the Bangalore Development Authority has knowingly proceeded to acquire 42 acres in the name of Banashankari VI Stage Project and has, very surprisingly, passed an award for payment of Rs.3.6 Crores in favour of persons claiming to be unauthorized cultivators. This land lies within 15 kilometres from the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanagara Palike limits and is therefore, expressly barred from being regularised in terms of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Even with full awareness of this

26
prohibition, the Bangalore Development Authority and the Land Tribunal have disregarded this and have passed compensation awards in respect of the said forest land in favour of private persons. 24. In December 2008, the Karnataka Public Lands Corporation Limited i.e., the Respondent No.5 was incorporated with Rupees Five (5) Crores of paid up capital inter alia to protect government lands recovered from encroachment. 25. Thereafter, in order to effectively implement the

recommendations of the JLC, a dedicated body called as the Task Force for Recovery of Public Land and its Protection was constituted under the chairmanship of the former Additional Chief Secretary, Sri V.Balasubramanian, IAS (Retd.). This was done through a Government Notification Vide G.O. No.RD 556/LGB/2009 dated 19-Sept-2009 which did specify that as part of its work, this Task Force was required to issue directions to the several Government departments and statutory bodies to take specific and appropriate action to remove encroachments. Thereby, this Task Force was legally established for the purpose of ensuring the implementation of various laws and statutes that were already in existence to recover encroached public land. Unlike the objective of the JLC which was confined to address the encroachment of public lands in Bangalore and its surrounding areas, the jurisdiction of this Task Force was extended to cover the entire territory of the State of Karnataka and to all Government lands including lands vested in statutory and local bodies. The Task Force for Recovery of Public Land and its Protection shall be referred to hereinafter as Task Force. 26. This Task Force undertook enormous efforts to identify encroached public lands throughout the State of Karnataka. It took various steps such as conduct of spot inspections, tracing the history of land records in respect of encroached

27
upon property, verification and scrutiny of property

documents and Government records and the issuing of numerous and co-ordinated instructions to the Government authorities to take immediate and time-bound steps for the recovery of encroached public lands. 27. The Petitioners state that the Task Force had not only issued a detailed statement of its activities in the form of a Final Report but had also issued or otherwise ensured issuance of numerous reports in respect of certain glaring instances of encroachment. The report of the Task Force itself records that its efforts to recover encroached public land were often defeated primarily on account of lack of administrative will. Few such instances of this Task Force going about its task and the sudden, calculated and unlawful interferences that it witnessed may be noted below: 28. This Task Force had conducted a very detailed investigation in respect of encroachments in Gollahalli village, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore Urban District. The Task Force report inter alia states that a road was formed in the middle of a lake land encroaching nearly 2 acres and 11 guntas of lake land. When the Task Force had co-ordinated a team of people from various departments to demolish the encroachments therein on a particular day and the entire machinery of people and tools from the Taluk office, Deputy Commissioners office along and the members of the Special Task Force were on the spot to carry out demolition of such encroachments, the persons in illegal occupation of such land came forth with an order of injunction, not from any competent Court of law, but from the Honble Chief Minister of Karnataka to the effect that no action be taken at all to remove any encroachments and that all encroachments be left in place as they were. 29. The Petitioners respectfully submit that the aforesaid stay order could have only been issued for the protection of certain

28
vested interests and not for any public good. Obviously, such intervention was not merely illegal but had the effect of sending out a loud and clear message to all concerned that the Government stance against encroachment of public lands was largely ceremonial and nobody, including this dedicated Task Force was meant to take the Governments professed objective with any degree of seriousness. 30. Thereafter, the Managing Director of the Karnataka Public Land Corporation had requested the Chief Secretary of the State through a letter dated 19-Dec-2009 for vacating the stay Order/withdrawal of the directions given on 16-Dec2009. It would surprise the right thinking members of our society that nothing ever came of the said request from the said Government body to the Chief Secretary of the State. A copy of the stay order issued by the Honble Chief Minister bearing No. MuMu/203/grutha/2009 dated 16-Dec-2009 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure C. A copy of the letter dated 19-Dec-2009 addressed by the Managing Director of Karnataka Public Lands Corporation Limited to the Chief Secretary of the State of Karnataka is produced herewith and marked as Annexure - D. 31. This Task Force had inquired into and found out multiple instances of encroachment of forest lands by certain plantation owners. Consequently, it had addressed various letters to the concerned departments to take specific remedial action. To the utter shock and dismay of any right thinking citizen, the Secretary to the Chief Minister had issued a note dated 19-Nov-2010 ordering that no precipitative action be taken without considering all the submissions or explanations of the alleged encroachers and even thereafter, nothing was to be done until a final decision was worked out by the Government.

29
32. The Petitioners respectfully submit that the aforesaid note had been issued merely to benefit certain vested interests and to stall the legitimate effort of the task force. A copy of the aforesaid note bearing reference No. PSCM/3495/2010 dated 19-Nov-2010 issued by the Secretary to the Honble Chief Minister is produced herewith and marked as Annexure - E. 33. Thus, the Petitioners respectfully state that the efforts of the Task Force were repeatedly frustrated by such acts and numerous other omissions of other Government agencies. 34. At this juncture, it is pertinent to submit that the

Government of Karnataka had set up 16 different task forces such as the Knowledge Commission, Vision Group of Karnataka 2020, etc. One of these 16 task forces was the aforesaid Task Force for Recovery of Public Land and its Protection. For reasons that still continue to surprise the right thinking members of our society, the Government of Karnataka, that is, Respondent No.2 published through a Notification that the Task Force shall be disbanded with effect from 04-Jul-2011 vide GO No.RD 897 LGB 2010. A copy of the said order issued by Respondent No.2 bearing number GO No.RD 897 LGB 2010 dated 04-Jan-2011 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure F. The reasons apparently stated in the said Order were incorrect to the very knowledge of the Government. All the same, the other 15 task forces continued to remain in operation after the disbandment of this Task Force although the work of some of those Task Forces would have greatly benefited by the continued operation of this Task Force. The action of the Government of Karnataka in unlawfully disbanding the said Task Force is an act that cannot be justified under the label of administrative discretion in view of the circumstances that preceded such disbandment. If it was the intention of the Government, in disbanding the Task Force, to relieve the

30
encroachers of their worries, anxieties and fears, the

Government may be said to have succeeded thereby. A tabular chart detailing the various task forces/commissions that were set up by the Government of Karnataka is produced herewith and marked as Annexure - G. 35. This Task Force issued its Report on 30-Jun-2011 and titled it as Greed and Connivance. This Report was duly submitted to the Government of Karnataka on 04-Jul-2011. (This report shall be referred to hereinafter as the Task Force Report). However, the Respondent No.2 appears to have declined to accept the Task Force Report on account of alleged procedural irregularities. A copy of the Task Force Report dated 30-Jun-2011 issued by the Task Force is produced herewith and marked as Annexure - H. 36. After the submission of the Task Force Report, his Excellency, the Governor of Karnataka took serious note of the large scale encroachment of public lands and addressed a letter on 13Sep-2011 Karnataka to the Honble the Chief Minister of Karnataka of the inquiring into the steps taken by the Government of towards implementation recommendations in the Task Force Report. It was reflected in the said letter that the loss to the public exchequer on account of such encroachment of public lands is in the amount of approximately Rs.1,95,000 Crores (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Five Thousand Crores Only). A copy of the said letter dated 13-Sep-2011 addressed by His Excellency, the Governor of Karnataka to the Honble Chief Minister of Karnataka is produced herewith and marked as Annexure J. 37. The Petitioners have reliably learnt that His Excellency, the Governor of Karnataka had inquired into and had also instructed the Respondents to act upon the Report and to take action for recovering encroached public lands. The

31
Petitioners have further reliably learnt that the following three committees have been constituted thereafter, by the Respondent No.2: (i) Committee Revenue Department, headed by Secretary to the Revenue Department. The Petitioners have learnt that whilst a meeting or two have been conducted, no concrete steps have been taken so far. (ii) Committee Forest Department, headed by the

Principal Secretary, Forests, Environment and Ecology. The Petitioners have learnt that no meetings have been conducted by the Committee and that the Forest Department is not even aware of the constitution of such a Committee in respect of land grabbing. (iii) Committee Secretary, Urban Development, headed by the Urban Development Department. The

Petitioners have learnt that no meetings have been conducted thus far, by this Committee. 38. The Task Force Report and JLC Reports (both these reports shall be hereinafter referred to as Reports) emphatically state that despite various legal provisions for the protection against encroachment and for removal of encroached public lands, blatant encroachments of public lands have continued primarily due to the intentional refusal or indifference of various competent authorities. Between intentional omission and indifference, these are the intermediate factors at play ignorance of proper legal powers, lethargy, fear of consequences arising from vexing those in power, aggressive interference by powerful interests and last but not the least, collusion with encroachers. The Task Force quotes the JLC Reports and proceeds to state that the powers vested in various officers are in fact, wasted on them. 39. The Reports state that the estimated value of the

encroachments in the Bangalore Urban District consisting of

32
the five Taluks of Bangalore North, Bangalore North

Additional, Bangalore East, Bangalore South and Anekal Taluks, on a conservative estimate of Rupees One and half (1.5) Crore per acre, on average, is Rupees Forty Thousand (40,000) Crores. 40. The JLC Report enumerates the details of encroachment, which is extracted herein below (in respect of Bangalore Urban District): Sl. No. 1. 2. Name of the Department Revenue Department Bangalore Development Authority 3. 4. Muzrai a) Forest b) Tank bed 5. Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board 6. Town Municipal Councils/ City Municipal Councils 7. Bangalore Mahanagara Palike 8. Karnataka Housing Board 9. 10. Wakf Board Housing Co-operative Societies 259.33 86.19 780.00 170.00 34.08 152.00 7.08 46.00 8.08 32.32 38.09 719.34 219.20 33.22 66.44 165.55 1,877.08 Encroachment in acres 9294.00 2,878.20 Approximate value in Crores 18,588.00 5,236.25

33
11. 12. Bangalore University Transport Department 13. Health Department (NIMHANS) 14. Animal Husbandry Department 15. Slum Clearance Board Total 41. 13,614.37 27,377.75 12.19 25.00 45.00 100.00 3.20 25.00 11.22 3.31 96.11 18.00

The Reports states that the extensive growth of Bangalore in the last 20 years has resulted in an exponential increase in the value of land, consequently, resulting in extensive encroachments of government land. Therefore, the Task Force Report observes that Bangalores rapid development has created a very lucrative real estate industry which has beckoned an organised ring of specialists whose work is to encroach upon Government and Public lands with the active blessings and involvement of persons in power within and in the vicinity of Bangalore. The extensive growth in the Bangalore Urban and Bangalore Rural districts fuelled by the high value of lands and availability of large area of Government lands like gomal, gunduthope, tank-beds, parks and civic amenities sites have led to their extensive encroachments.

42.

The JLC report observes that Bangalore Urban District contains a large extent of erstwhile Inam lands which became Government land after the abolition of Inams (Inam lands were certain Government lands previously bestowed to certain persons in return for their services to the Government subject to the pleasure of the Government and to the continued

34
performance of such services. In the decades following the 1950s, such inams were statutorily abolished). However, erstwhile Inam lands which had reverted to the Government such as community lands have also been encroached upon. 43. Another observation made by the Task Force was the illegal use of agricultural lands for non-agricultural purposes, chiefly residential development. For instance, a company called Epsilon Ventures Private Limited had knowingly violated the various land use laws by proceeding to construct expensive villas for wealthy customers without regard to the land use laws in force. The Task Force had addressed a letter on 29-Dec-2010 to the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore Urban District, requiring the Deputy Commissioner to enquire as to whether the project had been undertaken with the requisite conversion from agricultural use to other uses in terms of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. Thereafter, the Tahsildar undertook a personal inspection and after according an opportunity to the promoters to state their response, wrote on 05-Aug-2011 to the Deputy Commissioner. The report of the Tahsildar indicates that public land measuring 2 acres and 16.5 guntas had been encroached upon therein. The report further states that structures have been constructed on an approximate area of 12 acres and 4.14 guntas without the requisite land/non-agricultural conversion. The Petitioners submit that despite such report as aforesaid by the Tahsildar, no action has been taken by the Respondents to safeguard such public lands. The Petitioners most respectfully submit that the aforesaid events amply demonstrate a clear lack of administrative will in taking prompt and effective action for the recovery of encroached public land and that there are vested private interests which have been successfully operating against public interest. A copy of the said report

35
dated 05-Aug-2011 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure K. 44. The Task Force, in its report, also makes certain findings about the auction procedure followed by the Revenue Department to dispose off public lands. Taking upon certain concrete cases, the Task Force has stated that advertisements about the auctions were not wide enough. And that holders of General Powers of Attorney and the same agent representing multiple bidders were unlawfully permitted to participate in such auctions. Inevitably, such transgressions have easily led to collusion, rigging and cartelisation. For instance, the Report speaks of the case of one bidder by the name of Sri Yousuff Shariff. The total extent of lands auctioned by the Deputy Commissioner for Bangalore Urban district between 2005 and 2009 and thereafter confirmed by the Government is 643 acres. This auction had fetched to the Government, a sum of Rs.540/- Crores (Rupees Five Hundred and Forty Crores only). Of the auctioned 643 acres, 283 acres have been confirmed in favour of one person, Sri Yousuff Shariff making him the single biggest beneficiary of such auctioned lands. The Task Force Report also states that Sri Yousuff Shariff acted as the same general power of attorney holder for multiple bidding companies such as Umrah Brothers, Afnan Developers, Hill Land Properties, MVR Securities and Top Notch Infrastructure a factor that all bidding processes fundamentally prohibit. As stated in the Report, the Task Force had brought this irregularity to the notice of the Principal Secretary of Revenue Department and Chief Secretary of the State of Karnataka vide letters dated 04-Oct2010 and 05-Oct-2010 but to no avail. 45. The Petitioners state that lack of administrative will for taking swift and prompt action in respect of land grabbing is further

36
demonstrated by the following other acts described in the Reports: 46. The Reports state that the Bangalore Development Authority (referred to hereinafter as BDA, for short) does not even maintain an updated Property Register for reasons best known to it and is therefore, is no position to accurately ascertain the total extent of encroachment of lands within its jurisdiction. Still, of the BDAs own estimate of Two Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty Nine (2,739) acres under encroachment, it has been able to recover not more than a meagre Twelve percent (12%) or Three Hundred and Thirty Three (333) acres of land after the formation of the Joint Legislature Committee in 2006. A conservative market value estimate of such encroached upon land has been estimated by the Task Force at a staggering amount of Rupees Eleven thousand Crores (Rs.11,000/- Crores). The Report records inter alia the following inadequacies and failures of the BDA to act in accordance with its statutory duties and employ its statutorily given powers: (i) BDA, like so many other departments and local bodies, does not even maintain an updated Property Register. In the absence of such a register, the BDA is often clueless and unable to ascertain the complete extent of the encroachment of its land; (ii) BDA has often failed to insist upon the statutorily mandated earmarking of 45% of layout area (15% for parks, 10% for civic amenities site and 20% for roads). As such, by disregarding its statutory obligations, the BDA is neither taking a firm stand on relinquishment of these sites by erring layout developers nor does it insist prior to approving distribution of sites that the private layouts should fence and handover public purpose lands to the BDA;

37
(iii) The Reports further opine that the functioning of BDA has been hampered by ineffective legal services availed by it; (iv) The Reports state that de-notification of acquired land has also added to the woes of BDA. The Reports record myriad instances of de-notification of civic amenities sites. The Task Force Report indicates that about Two thousand eight hundred and thirteen (2,813) acres have been de-notified and that in almost all cases of denotification, the Government has not observed the pertinent rules; and (v) The Task Force Report also records the inefficiency of the Revenue Department in auctioning reclaimed Government land. Forest Land. 47. The Task Force Report states that the total geographical area of Karnataka State is 1,90,498 square kilometres. Of this, 30,718 square kilometres are classified as forests. This is equivalent to about Seventy Six (76) Lakh acres of forest lands in the State. According to the details furnished by the Forest Department, an area of one lakh sixty five thousand seven hundred and ninety six (1,65,796) acres are under encroachment. This shows a colossal failure on the part of the Central and State Governments in the enforcement of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and the significant Orders of the Honble Supreme Court in the Forest case, WP (C) No.202 of 1995. Further, the encroachment of more than 60% of the Forest lands occurs in the ecologically sensitive Western Ghats, one of the 18 ecological hotspots in the world. 48. The Task Force Report has reported the helplessness expressed by the concerned officials and their inability to

38
remove encroachments by influential persons. For example, there is an encroachment of about 60 acres of forest land in the border area between Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh in Janagalkunte forest by a former Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly. Despite an order dated 30-Mar-2007 passed by the Assistant Conservator for the removal of encroachment, the matter could not proceed any further as the said order the was appealed before had the Conservator. for joint Thereafter, Conservator ordered

measurement of the encroachment by a team of officials from the Forest and Revenue Departments vide his order dated 16Jul-2008. However, the joint inspection was expectedly obstructed by persons eager to retain the encroachment and the inspection team was not even allowed to enter into the area. The Task Force then found out that those very lands had already been surveyed in detail by Forest surveyors and encroachment stood established by clear maps that were available. In further turn of events, the alleged encroacher had approached this Honble Court and the Task Force was of the bonafide impression that the alleged encroacher did misrepresent the relevant facts to this Honble Court. Thereby, an Order came to be passed by this Honble Court on 16-Dec-2010 directing one more survey of the lands in question. Accordingly, another exhaustive survey took place and expectedly, confirmed the fact of encroachment. The matter has since been held up in the Courts. 49. The Reports outline the following reasons for the extensive encroachments and the inability of the forest department to effectively deal with such encroachment: (i) Although 7,846 forest offence cases have been booked under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as Forest Act), Orders have been passed only in 1,193 cases by the Assistant Conservators of Forests despite considerable number of years lapsing

39
after the registration of such cases. Thereafter, most such orders accomplish nothing as they are routinely challenged before the Conservators of Forests; (ii) The JLC Report records instances of encroachment in Turahalli Minor forest, Bannerghatta National Park and Bangalore Urban Forest Division. JLC Report further recommends action impugning criminal negligence against concerned Forest Department Officials. 50. The Petitioners further state that there are numerous instances galore of encroachment by large landholders and such encroachments are in respect of large areas. A Report indicating encroachment of areas exceeding 10 acres in the Chikmagalur forest division and the Bhadra Wildlife division is produced herewith and marked as Annexure L. A perusal of this report would leave no manner of doubt that with extensive information already available on all aspects of encroachment in regard to such forest lands, the only element that is lacking to remove such encroachments is an ordinary effort by the Government officers. 51. The Petitioners further state that a large number of such encroachments are made by persons in positions of power in active connivance with law enforcers. A copy of a news report indicating encroachment by former speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly Sri K.R.Ramesh Kumar is produced herewith and marked as Annexure M. Lakes, Water Bodies and Storm Water Drains 52. The Task Force Report states that there are about 38000 lakes in Karnataka. In Bangalore Urban District alone, there were about 600 lakes. As some lakes fell under two adjoining survey numbers belonging to two different villages in the revenue records, the number of lakes in Bangalore Urban District has been shown as 937. The JLC report states that in

40
1961, there were 262 water bodies in Bangalore City area. These water bodies have become the first casualty of illegal layout formation, rank trespass, blatant encroachment and sanction by various departments of the State and Central Government to put up construction. The reasons for such encroachment are stated in the Report as under: (i) Lakes and tank beds have been encroached upon by builders, shopkeepers, hoteliers, layout makers and sites selling realtors, timber merchants, educational institutions, instant overnight temple builders, political personalities, industrialists and sometimes, even by the BDA itself; (ii) The Task Force Report further affirms that there are about 840 kilometres of raja kaluves and storm water drains which have been mostly encroached upon and used as sewage channels instead. The JLC reports state that the statutorily incorporated Karnataka Pollution Control Board has wasted its powers to initiate prosecution against those who pollute the tank bed by encroachment. Matters were not helped by the State Pollution Control Board conveniently shifting the onus upon the Central Pollution Control Board in certain cases; (iii) The Lake Development Authority (herein after referred to as LDA for short) is a society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1960 in July 2002 with the objective of protecting, maintaining and developing lakes in the State. The Reports state that LDA is a high powered authority with the Chief Secretary to Government as its Chairman while senior officers of the State Government, the BDA and of BBMP are its members. The Task Force Report states that the LDA is not vested with sufficient powers to initiate

41
action for removal of encroachments and inter alia for this reason, has not been successful either in curbing encroachment or in recovering encroached lands; (iv) In 1985, an expert committee under the chairmanship of late Sri N.Lakshman Rau, IAS (Retd.), was formed to examine drawbacks and problems related to preservation and restoration of tanks in the then Bangalore Metropolitan Area and to make suitable recommendations Government of the thereupon. day had Thereafter, accepted all of the its

recommendations and had issued a Government Order vide PWD 82 IMB 85 dated 11-Feb-1998. The said Government Order had allocated the responsibility of maintaining tanks/lakes as under: (a) The 46 disused tanks should be handed over to the Horticulture and Forest Department and Ornamental Parks and Tree Parks should be raised in these unused tank beds; (b) The 81 Live Tanks should not be breached but should be protected by foreshore planting and they should be used for irrigation or for recreation purposes to preserve environment; (c) The 262 tanks in the Green Belt should be protected and maintained just like the 81 Live Tanks; (d) The Forest Department has been handed over 90 tanks and lakes exclusively for preservation; 24 other lakes should be preserved jointly by the Forest Department and Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation; Tourism Department (12), BDA (6), BWSSB (4), Minor Irrigation (1) and BBMP (1);

42
(e) In addition to Cubbon Park and Lal Bagh, six to eight Regional Parks should be developed in disused tank beds, if necessary by acquiring additional adjoining lands; (v) The Reports assert that the aforesaid government bodies to whom the tanks were allocated have wantonly failed to protect that those the lakes and tank Rau beds from encroachment. The Task Force Report significantly states Lakshman Committee recommendations were implemented in breach rather than in observance. The Reports thereafter make detailed recommendations for removal of encroachments as well as for controlling pollution of the lakes which have become sewage tanks posing serious health hazards and thereby violating various environmental laws including the provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 (herein after referred to as EP Act for short) and the related rules and notifications. Here, one is bound to see a colossal failure of the State and the Central Pollution Control Board as well as of the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India in the enforcement of the Environment and Forest laws of the land such as the EP Act and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and other related statutes and notifications. Public, Religious and Charitable Institutions 53. The JLC Report found that a majority of Temple lands that lie within the limits of Bangalore City and Bangalore Urban District had been encroached. The JLC Report considered about 1016 (One thousand and Sixteen) temples in Bangalore Urban District out of which 68 (Sixty Eight) are situated in important commercial areas within the city. In many cases, very valuable temple lands were sold off on the basis of forged

43
documents. Competent authorities such as the Muzrai Department and the Religious and Endowment Department have not taken effective measures to protect temple lands and property. The JLC Report also states that if properties belonging to 68 different temples in the Bangalore city alone were safeguarded and let out at prevailing market prices, the income generated thereby could take care of renovation and development expenses of almost all such temples in the State that are under Government care. Collusion of Government Officials in Land Grabbing 54. The Reports record various instances of blatantly illegal regularization of unauthorized construction on lands. In some cases, proceedings before the Upalokayukta are seen to be pending. The Reports also record instances of flagrant breach of the KLR Act and the Rules and Regulations made thereunder whilst regularising unauthorised cultivation. The KLR Act prohibits the regularisation of unauthorised cultivation of lands that are situated within 18 kilometres from the outer BBMP limits. The Reports specifically record numerous, but blatant violations in this regard. The Reports observe that about 5,835 acres of land have been regularized in the vicinity of Bangalore even with factual knowledge that almost all of such lands are situated within 18 kilometres from the BBMP limits. The Task Force Report states that the lands in respect of which regularization applications have been either illegally allowed or are pending in respect of nearly 20000 acres of land could be valued at Rs.20,000 (Twenty Thousand) Crores. 55. The JLC Report notes that in a majority of cases, encroachers were able to get khatas (record of rights in respect of immovable property made in their names) from the BBMP, BDA, City Municipal Councils (hereinafter referred to as CMCs, for short), Town Municipal Councils (hereinafter

44
referred to as TMCs, for short), Gram Panchayats etc. through submission of evidently false documents. The JLC Report inter alia takes note of the fact that the procedures prescribed for the issuance of Khatha, No Objection Certificate, construction license and other similar permissions are not followed scrupulously by the officers concerned. Government Litigation 56. The Reports also observe that the Revenue Department has failed to effectively safeguard Government lands through the medium of litigation. Clause 65-A of the Karnataka Government (Transaction of Business) Rules, 1977 requires the Department of Law to review pending Government litigation, at least once in a month. In the Reports, it is observed that despite the existence of such a review mechanism, in Bangalore Urban District alone, more than 1000 (One thousand) cases before the City Civil Court and this Honble Court had witnessed the passage of ex parte Orders against the BDA that could have been have avoided through greater vigil on the part of those concerned. The estimated loss caused to the Government on account of the said ex-parte Orders alone is over Rs.2,000/- Crores. The JLC Report observes that the Law Department should computerize its records on the lines of computerisation of records by this Honble Court to increase its efficiency in monitoring cases. 57. The JLC Report suggests that the present system of selection of Government advocates could be vastly improved upon and that it should be changed. It also recommends the creation of a High Level Committee with superintendence over the selection/termination of Government advocates. The Reports set out elaborate recommendations for reinvigorating the prosecution Government. and defence of litigations involving the

45
City Survey 58. The Reports state that the Government is unable to effectively protect Government land or Commons such as Gomal, Gunduthope, Tankbeds etc., primarily because of a failure to accurately survey or to promptly update entries wherever already surveyed. The JLC Report urges the State to conduct a city survey using recent advancements in technology. The JLC Report makes a comparison between the older methods of survey using tools such as cross staff, chains and theodolite and states that the errors arising from the older methods could be drastically cut down by using advanced methods of survey that use Total Station instrument. The JLC Report states that installation of Geographical control points and Total Stations produces an accurate survey to the extent of five (5) mm. 59. The Report further recommends that the system of

Registration of Titles established under the Torrens System is preferable to Registration of Deeds, as the present system of Registration is susceptible to easy exploitation by encroachers. The crucial distinction between Registration of Deeds and that of Registration of Titles is that in the former, properties are transferred upon execution of deeds, whereas in case of the latter, properties are transferred by Registration of Title in a public registration (after verifying the title by the claimants). 60. The Reports opine that an elaborate exercise of accurate survey and printing of land and property records by modern methods and a detailed City Survey Enquiry giving due public notice will result in creation of property title documents which would be certainly more dependable than the documents that are issued or registered in the present. The Reports observe that a complete survey for the entire Bangalore Metropolitan

46
Region will go a long way in reducing encroachment of government lands. De-notification of public land 61. The Task Force Report points out numerous irregularities in the process of de-notification of public lands. In addition to providing some glaring examples, the Task Force opines that there is hardly any justification in deleting lands within a given layout by adopting a pick and choose method as is done in most cases. 62. The Petitioners state that there are numerous instances of illegal de-notification of public lands in the name of administrative discretion or expediency and therefore, it is just, necessary and proper that this Honble Court consider issuing a workable set of guidelines and directions that would be binding upon the Government in the event that it chooses to de-notify lands that were previously acquired for public purposes. The Petitioners further submit that allocation of public lands to private persons, be they individuals, companies, trusts, societies etc., is often not accompanied by any objective satisfaction in the mind of the Government that any public good is achieved by such conveyance and in all such cases, there would be a violation of the ancient principle that public lands always belong to the commons and should be preserved as such except in the case of a compelling necessity. The Petitioners respectfully submit that public lands cannot and should not be diverted to merely benefit private persons without any demonstrable good to the public and that certain public lands and facilities, by their very nature, are best kept accessible to the general public in the present and for posterity. The Karnataka (Land Grabbing) Prohibition Bill, 2007

47
63. Pursuant to the recommendations of the JLC, the Karnataka Legislature had passed the Karnataka (Land Grabbing) Prohibition Bill, 2007. Thereafter, the same was submitted to the Union Home Ministry with a view to obtain the Presidents assent in July, 2007. However, four years later, on 04-Mar2011, the Union Home Ministry chose to return the bill to the Government of Karnataka for a specific inclusion of Wakf Board lands. The JLC Report states that in the neighbouring State of Andhra Pradesh, the enforcement of the Andhra Pradesh Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 1982, has successfully curbed large scale encroachment of public lands inter alia due to the setting up of special courts to exclusively deal with cases of encroachment of public lands. The Reports, therefore, recommend that the State should take immediate measures to carry out the necessary amendments and to again table the Karnataka (Land Grabbing) Prohibition Bill, 2007. Since the publication of the Task Force Report in July 2011, the new Bill has been passed in the Legislature but no steps have been taken to obtain the assent of the President expeditiously which does lead a right thinking citizen to doubt whether there is any administrative will at all to address the problem of encroachment with the seriousness that it deserves. 64. The JLC Report inter alia recommends the preparation of a Master Plan for the use of encroached lands after their successful recovery keeping in mind the principles of sustainable development, future growth, requirements of infrastructure and the environment. 65. The Petitioners vide their letter dated 25-July-2012 had requested the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka to take urgent action for effective implementation of the Report dated 30-Jun-2011 issued by the Task Force for the Recovery of Public Land and its Protection. When the petitioners noticed

48
that no response was forthcoming a month later, they issued another reminder dated 27-Aug-2012. However, as of today, the petitioners have not received any response whatsoever from the Government and it is their honest impression that the absence of any response from the Chief Secretary simply demonstrates that the Government does not at all intend to move any further in recovering encroached upon lands than where it stood while the Task Force came to be disbanded on 04-Jul-2011. A copy of the letters dated 25-Jul-2012 and 27Aug-2012 addressed by these petitioners to the Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka are produced herewith and marked as Annexure - N and Annexure - O respectively. 66. From a perusal of various news reports, it appears that the Task Force Report was submitted to the Government on or before 04-Jul-2011, i.e., the date set for the submission of the final report. However, it further appears that the Task Force Report has not been accepted by the Government on account of some alleged procedural irregularities. If not for the fact that concerned citizens had eagerly sought for copies of this Report and that multiple copies thereof came to be printed and made available at the personal cost and expense of the Chairman of the Task Force, it was more than likely that the gigantic work that has been done by the Task Force would never have come into public knowledge in the manner that it has spread. The Task Force Report spares none howsoever and goes on to record very specific instances of encroachments, without fear or favour of any person. Needless to say, the work undertaken by the Chairman of this Task Force was of such nature that there always was a dire threat against his life during the performance of his duties. It was at such a personal cost and a grave threat to his own life that one public servant truly took the motto of the Government of Karnataka, Governments work is Gods work to his heart and has prepared and entrusted a comprehensive

49
Report to the public. It is respectfully submitted that the implementation of the JLC Reports and the Task Force Report which is of paramount public importance, is being ignored by the Government. Moreover, besides setting up the Task Force, the Government has failed to take effective measures to curb encroachment or to recover public lands. The efforts of the State Government and its various instrumentalities have at best been lackadaisical and consequently, the State has failed to perform its constitutional and statutory duties. 67. These petitioners had, therefore, deemed it necessary to approach the Honble Supreme Court and had filed a Writ Petition in terms of Article 32 of the Constitution before the Supreme Court under the circumstances as aforesaid. On 15Feb-2013, the Honble Supreme Court was pleased to state in Writ Petition (Civil) No.67 of 2013 that the issues raised therein were indeed grave and to direct that: In case the petitioners move the Karnataka High Court in a properly constituted petition, the High Court shall examine the matter and pass appropriate Orders on it without any undue delay A copy of the aforesaid Order dated 15-Feb-2013 passed by the Honble Supreme Court in Writ Petition No.67 of 2013 is produced herewith and marked as Annexure - P. Court Fee 68. The Petitioners share the same cause of action. However, the applicable Court Fee has been individually assessed and a sum of Rs.400/- (Rupees Four hundred only) against 4 Petitioners has been duly tendered to this Honble Court. 69. Therefore, the Petitioners submit that in order to address the very issues that the Honble Supreme Court has termed as grave, these petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this

50
Honble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the following, amongst, other grounds: Grounds The grounds urged hereunder are without prejudice to one another. The Petitioners crave leave of this Honble Court to urge additional grounds at the time of hearing. I. It is the duty of the executive, i.e., of the State Government and its instrumentalities the laws that to strictly been and scrupulously by our implement have enacted

Legislature. Such is our constitutional scheme of governance. The alarming rate of encroachment of public lands is largely due to the evident reluctance of the executive Government to perform its statutory duties. It is respectfully submitted that the State machinery which is already equipped with numerous powers under various statutes has wantonly failed to address the burgeoning problem of land grabbing. The Task Force Reports decisively state that such failure is not merely attributable to apathy but to also active participation and connivance by many public servants themselves. There are several legal provisions in various statutory enactments that already equip the State Government to combat the evil of encroachment of public lands. Instances of legislations addressing the problem of encroachment, as applicable to the State of Karnataka are enumerated as under: i) The BDA, despite being empowered by Section 33A of the Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976, to evict and prosecute encroachers and abettors has failed to effectively employ such provisions against encroachers; ii) Section 5 of the Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974, provides ample powers for eviction of unauthorised occupants.

51
However, the Respondents have failed to take strict action pursuant thereto; iii) The Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976

empowers the BBMP to take punitive action against encroachers and the BBMP has failed to employ such provisions effectively; iv) The Forest Department despite being in a position to initiate action against the encroachers and its abettors under Section 3A read with Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, has failed to invoke such statutory powers; v) Section 64A of the Forest Act provides for penalty for unauthorisedly taking possession of land constituted as reserved forest, district forest, village forest, protected forest and any other land under the control of the Forest Department; vi) The Revenue Department has acted in disregard of the provisions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 such as Section 94A which specifies instances where regularisation should be considered and Section 94B which prescribes the conditions under which land can be granted. Further, the Revenue department has failed to prosecute land grabbers and their abettors under aforesaid sections of KLR Act, 1964; vii) The provisions of the Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1985 (herein after referred to as Goonda Act for short) provides for penal consequence for unauthorized use or occupation of land belonging to a Corporation and aiding and abetting such occupation by any person; viii) Section 74 of the Karnataka Urban Development

Authorities Act, 1987 provides for penal consequences and prohibition of unauthorized occupation of land;

52
ix) Section 72 of the Karnataka Panchayat Raj Act, 1993 provides against obstructions and encroachments upon public streets and open sites; x) Section 54 of the Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 provides against encroachment upon lands and buildings. II. The Government of Karnataka has no administrative

discretion whatsoever not to comply with the aforesaid statutes that have been passed either by the Parliament of India or by the Legislature of Karnataka. None of the aforesaid statutes offer any freedom to the Government of Karnataka to ignore their mandate. As such, the question that arises under the circumstances as are prevalent in the State is whether the Government of Karnataka has conducted itself in a reasonable manner in the matter of addressing the evil of encroachment of public lands. No reasonable person could, after perusing the various Reports discussed in this petition, reach any satisfaction howsoever that the conduct of the Government has been reasonable. It has been anything but reasonable. It becomes the bounden duty of this Honble Court to intervene in cases such as this where the conduct of the executive Government is squarely opposed to the will of the Legislature. III. The Respondents have arbitrarily disbanded the Task Force which was set up for the protection of public lands from encroachment. The Government had a clear duty to the public to state the true reasons for the non-acceptance of the Report of the Task Force. It is a fundamental principle of administrative law that a Government should at all times, conduct itself with utmost honesty with its citizens for whose good alone, it is brought into existence in the first place. The reasons denoted for disbanding the Task Force were factually incorrect and the decision was taken in haste and without

53
due application of mind. The action of the Respondent No.2 in singularly targeting and disbanding the Task Force smacks of a malafide intention on the part of Respondent No.2. It is most respectfully submitted that this is indicative of the governments rejection of public interest of protecting public lands and forests. Such conduct is nothing but a tacit support to the encroachers by disbanding the Task Force that was simply discharging the public duties that were entrusted to it. IV. Too many pronouncements from our Courts already exist to remove any and all doubt in the mind of the Government of Karnataka that it cannot knowingly, intentionally and deliberately refuse to act when it is officially informed by no less than its own instrumentality that too many of our public lands have been encroached upon. As such, the Government of Karnataka should be held to be reluctant to abide by the numerous statutes already in force under the circumstances described above. V. The Respondents have failed and neglected to take immediate steps even after the publication of the JLC Report. The Petitioners submit that the recommendations of the Reports deserve to be accepted unless there exist a cogent and sound basis to reject the same. Further, the interest of the public cannot be protected merely by formal acceptance of those reports unless the recommendations therein are implemented within a fixed and short span of time. It is apparent from a perusal of the Reports that extensive research has already been conducted on the ground and on the basis of findings at the ground level, elaborate recommendations have been made within the framework of existing laws. The JLC Report has clearly brought out the rampant irregularities plaguing the state with respect to public lands.

54
VI. Article 144 of the Constitution of India mandates that all instrumentalities of the State should strive and endeavour to abide by the Orders of the Supreme Court. The State machinery has knowingly failed to comply with the multiple directions issued by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs. Union of India. It is most respectfully submitted that not only has the State failed in its duty of implementing the existing law, but the State has further failed to comply with the directions issued by no less than the Honble Supreme Court. It is most respectfully submitted that the State machinery has failed to check illegal encroachment and deforestation and has thereby failed to take necessary remedial measures and such failure has led to huge ecological imbalances. The State is duty bound to prevent illegal encroachment and deforestation to maintain the ecological balance of our forest lands. It is submitted with utmost respects that the States continued failure to comply with the directions passed by the Honble Supreme Court clearly necessitates intervention by this Honble Court . The Petitioners respectfully seek the setting up of a committee by this Honble Court to assist it in the task of monitoring the compliance by the Government of binding directions issued by the Honble Supreme Court and of directions expected to be issued by this Honble Court. VII. The Respondent No.2 is yet to effectively comply with the Orders passed by the Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1132 of 2011 i.e., Jagpal Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab and Ors. AIR 2011 SC 1123. It is most respectfully submitted that the Honble Supreme Court has passed an Order dated 28-Jan-2011 directing the States to take effective steps for the protection of public lands from encroachment. It is respectfully submitted that despite the aforesaid Order, the Respondents have proceeded to disband the Task Force which was set up for the very same purpose. It is most respectfully

55
submitted that the Task Force, through its wide public notice had received during its functioning from September 2009 to June 2011, petitions, personal appearances, reference from Lokayuktha, telephone calls, emails, newspaper reports and even anonymously, 1597 complaints of encroachments of public lands. Of these, 398 complaints were finally disposed off to the satisfaction of the complainants through detailed enquiry by Deputy Commissioners, Conservators of Forests or other district level department heads. The remaining 1199 complaints of encroachments were under different stages of enquiry when the Task Force was disbanded at the direction of the then Revenue Minister. It is learnt that such direction was without any reference or concurrence of the cabinet notwithstanding that the encroachments of public lands was not confined merely to the Revenue lands and lands that were the responsibility of several other departments and ministries were also the subject of encroachment and an unilateral decision by the Revenue department would have been insufficient to cut short the functioning of the Task Force whose work was to the benefit of several other ministries as well. It is most respectfully submitted that of the nearly 11 lakh acres of encroachments identified, only 47,309 acres of encroachments were removed by the empowered officers of various departments. This removal accounts for a mere 4.3% of recovery. At that stage itself, the Government is seen to have developed unexplained anxiety to disband the Task Force. The said action of the Government to disband the Task Force at a time when the Task Force was making steady progress is a square refusal of the Government to not honour the aforesaid directions of the Supreme Court. The disbandment of the Task Force, under such circumstances therefore amounts to the Government refusing to comply with the mandate of the Supreme Court Order dated 28-Jan-2011. Under such circumstances, the Government has necessarily

56
invited the intervention of this Honble Court to remedy its breach. VIII. The increased rate of deforestation which is taking place due to rapid encroachment of forest lands is often irreversible. Rare flora and fauna are thereby endangered and what is already being lost may never be recreated no matter what money is spent or what human effort is put to the task in the future. Conservationists have stated that by reason of such encroachments of forest lands, extinction of animal and plant species is proceeding on an alarming scale. Such rate of extinction over a short period of time is incompatibly greater than the corresponding extinction over the course of millions of years. Environmental degradation due to avoidable neglect by the Government has always brought about the intervention of our Courts and the need for immediate intervention in these circumstances is greatly warranted as the right to life as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India involves the right to the protection of ones forest environment free from incursion prohibited under the laws in force. IX. The States reluctance to prevent encroachment of public lands is a violation of the principle of Public Trust. Public lands are a shared heritage of humankind and has to be preserved for posterity. It is submitted that it is now a recognized principle that human beings owe a duty not only to their compatriots but also to the future generation to preserve and protect common heritage. This very principle has found acceptance in international law and is mentioned in the United Nations Convention on the Law of Seas (UNCLOS) and the UNESCO Declaration on the Responsibilities of the Present Generations towards Future Generations dated 12-Nov-1997. The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board

57
v. Sri C. Kenchappa and Ors., AIR 2006 SC 2038 has observed that The public trust is more than an affirmation of States power to use public property for public purposes. It is an affirmation of the duty of the State to protect the peoples common heritage. Further, in the case of M.C. Mehta Vs. Kamal Nath, (1997) 1 SCC 388, the Honble Supreme Court has recognized the public trust doctrine and held as follows: Our legal system based on English common law includes the public trust doctrine as part of its jurisprudence. The State is the trustee of all natural resources which are by nature meant for public use and enjoyment. The State as a trustee is under a legal duty to protect the natural resources. These resources meant for public use cannot be converted into private ownership. Thus the public trust doctrine is a part of the law of the land. X. The Petitioners, therefore, respectfully submit that the State is bound to retain control of and utilize public resources for public good. Implicit therein is a duty to vigorously safeguard all public lands from encroachment and where the fact of encroachment is brought to the notice of the Government, then to act forthwith to remove such encroachment. XI. By allowing illegal usurpers to encroach public lands, the State is in fact, an abettor to gross violation of the rule of law and the right to the environment and forest wealth enshrined under our Constitution. It is respectfully submitted that public lands earmarked for parks, playgrounds, lakes/lake developments, schools have all been blatantly encroached and unless the same is restored back to the communities, the rights of our communities would suffer in very real terms. XII. The Task Force report indicates numerous illegalities in denotification of public lands. It is most respectfully submitted that once a private land is notified for acquisition for a public

58
purpose in accordance with law, such land ought to be treated as public land for all purposes and de-notification ought to be allowed only in accordance with law and under exceptional circumstances. The concept of public purpose indicates that such land has to be put to such uses that make the land and any structures thereon accessible to and for the benefit of the public at large. It is respectfully submitted that many instances of de-notification of public lands are plainly improper, illegal and even mala fide alienation of public lands to favour private interests. Such selective de-notification of acquired public lands is clearly discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is therefore, respectfully submitted that it is just, necessary and proper that this Honble Court lay down detailed guidelines and directions in the matter of denotification of public lands so as to curb the possibility of illegal, mala fide, unreasonable and discriminatory deletions/de-notifications and to consider issuance of binding directions to the executive Government in that regard. XIII. The rampant encroachment of public lands has necessitated the creation of a Court monitored mechanism to ensure strict implementation of existing laws. It is respectfully submitted that our executive Government has largely failed in discharging its constitutional and statutory duties in the matter of curbing encroachment of public lands. Further, as noticed in the Reports, a large number of encroachments are caused with the knowledge of, if not the connivance of, the State administration and such illegal co-operation are procured at the instance and behest of influential persons. It is respectfully submitted that the nexus of powerful persons and perhaps, officials makes the task of implementation of land recovery simply impossible except in the hands of ironwilled men within the Government. Such peculiar circumstances have necessitated the intervention by this

59
Honble Court and the need for the creation of a continuous monitoring by this Honble Court. XIV. The duty of the executive Government is to uphold the rule of law. It is therefore necessary to proscribe and to prosecute public servants whenever it comes to the knowledge of the Government that the acts of such public servants were deliberately and intentionally done to knowingly facilitate encroachment by private persons. The officers of the Government such as Deputy Commissioners, Heads of Department and Chief Executive Officers have, as shown in the Reports, failed to perform their statutory duties. Under such circumstances, the Petitioners respectfully submit that this Honble Court consider the issue of a direction to the Government not to spare erring officials with a view to ensure that their departments perform their statutory duties scrupulously to protect and recover encroached lands. XV. As stressed upon in the earlier paragraphs, the directions of the Honble Supreme Court have been knowingly flouted by the Government of Karnataka. To ensure that the Orders of the Supreme Court are duly enforced, it is most respectfully submitted that it has become just and necessary to establish a Court appointed Monitoring Committee with a specific mandate to ensure strict compliance of the orders of the Honble Supreme Court and of this Honble Court. XVI. As stated in the Reports, the absence of a comprehensive survey has enabled the encroachers to illegally take advantage and to encroach public lands. It is therefore, necessary that this Honble Court consider directing the Government and its various agencies to carry out a survey and to prepare a Master Plan for future public purposes. The Reports have recommended that the Government should initiate a city survey of Bangalore Metropolitan Area under the Urban Property Ownership Records Project. In addition to

60
it, the utilisation of the services of the E-Governance Department would greatly help in updating the property registers and to therefore, aid the process of city survey. It is submitted that such steps would be necessary to equip the Government to more effectively check encroachment of public lands. XVII. Our legislature has already addressed the evil of

encroachment of public lands. Acting through the Parliament of India and the Legislature of Karnataka, our legislature has seen it fit to enact and pass various statutes for the explicit purpose of preventing encroachment of public lands. And, where public lands have already been encroached, specific and definite powers have been conferred upon our executive Government to act to remove the encroachments and to punish the offenders or the perpetrators. The language in which such powers have been conferred to our executive Government does not admit of any discretion not to act when it is informed about the fact of encroachment contemplated in the statutes. Therefore, in light of the constitutional scheme and arrangement that have been adopted in our country, the legislature has already done what it intended to do. The task then, of administering the various statutes passed by the legislature is squarely upon the executive Government. When the language in which the powers to check encroachment has been found not to admit of any discretion to the executive Government to refuse to act when warranted, it becomes the bounden and constitutional duty of the executive Government to exercise the powers that already reside in it for the purpose of removing encroachments. In the instant case, it is not in doubt that the executive Government is fully aware of the evil of encroachment of public lands. What did it do then? It established a Special Task Force for the express purpose of co-ordinating between various Government departments to identify and to remove encroachments of public lands. It is

61
only after the said Task Force went about its task in a faithful and honest manner that the executive Government chose to disband the Task Force altogether. The circumstances which led to the disbandment of the Task Force have been explained in great detail in this petition. Any reasonable person who would be told about the circumstances that preceded the disbandment of the Task Force would invariably reach the conclusion that the Government was opposed to the removal of encroachments and therefore, took the step of disbandment. Had the Government been merely unhappy with the functioning of the chairman of the Task Force, it could have proceeded to replace the chairman with a candidate whom the Government felt would act with greater concern over the evil of encroachment. However, that did not happen. Instead, the Government proceeded to disband the Task Force altogether. In doing so, the Government has unmistakably expressed its intention that it does not intend to remove encroachments of public lands if doing so would be inconvenient to those in positions of power. In a hypothetical situation where the Government of the day would candidly inform the judiciary that it does not intend to address the evil of encroachment, the judiciary would then be expected to explicitly inform the executive Government that should it not want to carry out the will of the legislature without any lawful excuse, it also loses its own legitimacy to continue in office any further. When such is the scheme of our constitutional arrangement, executive in the current has circumstances clearly where the its Government most expressed

deliberate refusal, it has also put in a clear invitation to this Honble Court to deeply intervene in the matter. In fact, the remedies of a writ precisely exist to address such blatant and deliberate inaction of our executive Government to enforce the will of our legislature. Therefore, the case at hand is an extremely deserving case of this Honble Courts intervention.

62
XVIII. Article 144 of the Constitution specifically directs all

Governments in the territory of India to act to enforce and abide by the Orders of the Supreme Court of India. The Orders of the Supreme Court referred to earlier in this petition could not have been more specific, explicit or clear. If the Government of Karnataka was unhappy or unwilling to abide by the aforesaid Orders, it could have proceeded to the Honble Supreme Court and expressed its inability or reluctance and could have sought an Order on terms that would have been acceptable to it. The Government of Karnataka did no such thing. It merely chose to ignore the said Orders of the Supreme Court and in doing so, it has necessarily invited an extensive intervention by this Honble Court. XIX. As early as in 1598, on the bounds of administrative discretion, Lord Coke had said that: notwithstanding the words of the commission give authority to the commissioners to do according to their discretions, yet their proceedings ought to be limited and bound into the rule of reason and law. For discretion is a science or understanding to discern between falsity and truth, between wrong and right, between shadows and substances, between equity and colourable glosses and pretences, and not to do according to their wills and private affections Rookes case (1598) 5 Co. Rep 99b. Four hundred years later, there is simply no room to doubt whether there is any discretion available to our executive Government to deliberately, knowingly and intentionally refuse to act when it is provided with specific, definite and actual information that certain Government lands have been encroached upon by private persons through clandestine, illegal, manipulative, corrupt or fraudulent means. There is and there can be none.

63
GROUNDS FOR INTERIM RELIEF: I. The facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the instant Writ Petition have been narrated in the aforesaid paragraphs and the same may be considered as also forming part of the reasons stated in support of the prayer for interim relief. II. It is plainly evident that the Respondents are not merely disinterested in removing encroachments of public lands but appear to be also interested in protecting encroachments by those in positions of power or influence. The same is evident from the fact that the Government of Karnataka has proceeded to disband the Task Force under the special circumstances narrated in the aforesaid paragraphs. III. There have been numerous instances of theft or destruction of departmental files stored in the offices of the Government of Karnataka whenever illegalities therein were expected to be laid before a judicial forum. Under such circumstances, it has further become necessary to seek the restoration of the Task Force for Recovery of Public Land And its Protection to similarly safeguard the records pertaining to public land encroachments. IV. The petitioners are mindful of the law that any Government that establishes a committee would also possess the requisite authority to disband the same at its discretion. However, the nature of the task assigned to the aforesaid Task Force was largely to coordinate with the various Government agencies to ensure that they simply did their own bounden task of acting to remove identified encroachments of public lands. In other words, the work of the Task Force was primarily aimed at reminding and commanding the various agencies of the Government to take steps to remove identified encroachments of public lands. The disbandment of the same, under the circumstances narrated above, is grossly illegal and unlawful

64
and the petitioners expect to persuade this Honble Court to so hold in the course of the hearing of this petition. However, until this Honble Court reaches such satisfaction, it is necessary, just and proper that the said Task Force is restored so that the work of removal of encroachments upon public lands is not halted and the departmental files that pertain to encroachments of public lands are duly safeguarded. V. The Government could have no manner of grievance if only, as an interim arrangement, the Task Force is restored by this Honble Court and is permitted to proceed with the task that it had solemnly performed in the period between 19-Sep2009, the date on which it was established and 04-Jul-2011, the date on which it was disbanded. It is noteworthy that the Government itself did not appear to have perceived any infraction on the part of the Task Force warranting its sudden disbandment. That is, on 04-Jan-2011 when the Government notified that the Task Force shall only continue for the next six months, the Government certainly could not have known of any infraction warranting its immediate disbandment. Therefore, it cannot be the case of the Government that the Task Force itself warranted any immediate disbandment at any point of time during its functioning. This aspect assumes significance in the context of the prayer for interim relief sought for by these petitioners. As such, if only the tenure of the Task Force came to be extended by this Honble Court as an interim arrangement in the exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction to intervene in matters of such grave importance to the public, there could be no prejudice caused to the Government or even if there could be any, the same would merely be theoretical and would be far outweighed by the public interest that would be served by the restoration of the Task Force, as an interim arrangement, through the Order sought by this Honble Court.

65
VI. The Petitioners are fully likely to prevail on the merits of their case and that the grant of an interim stay upon the operation of the impugned notification disbanding the Task Force would not adversely affect any interest of the State Government as the removal of encroachments and the working of a body to ensure such removal are the very responsibilities of the Government and no manner of prejudice would be caused to the Government by the causing of such removal under circumstances where the Government itself is unable to show that it has arranged for a different body to accomplish the very task that was performed by the Task Force. Further, the fact that the communication by the petitioners to the Government has gone completely unresponded does support the argument of the petitioners that the Government itself is without any plan or substitute to occupy the place of the disbanded Task Force. Accordingly, should this Honble Court allow the continuation of the Task Force as an interim arrangement, not even a theoretical grievance could be said to have been occasioned to the Respondents. VII. It is noteworthy that more than 40,000 (Forty Thousand) acres of encroached public lands were restored back to the Government during the short tenure of the Task Force and it would be reasonable to state that the removal of such extent of land from encroachments itself speaks to the efficiency and dedication of the said Task Force to its official objective. PRAYER In the above facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that this Honble Court may graciously be pleased to: (a) Issue a Writ of mandamus or a Writ of any other nature or description or an Order or direction to set aside the Government Order No.RD 897 LGB 2010 dated 04-Jan2011 disbanding the Task Force with effect from 04-Jul-

66
2011 (produced as Annexure - F to this petition) on the ground of the same being arbitrary, illegal, unlawful or representing abuse of executive discretion and to direct the Government to ensure the continuation of a Specially Empowered Task Force to carry out all the discontinued functions and responsibilities of the disbanded Task Force under the supervision and control of this Honble Court; (b) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ of any other nature or description or an order or direction to the Government of Karnataka, Respondent No.2 to recover the public lands (as mentioned in the reports of the Task Force for Recovery of Public Land and its Protection and Joint Legislature Committee of Karnataka Legislature) that have been encroached upon or illegally grabbed by private persons be they individuals /institutions /trusts /societies/ non-governmental organizations/charitable or commercial enterprises or organisations of any other description or nature and to report such recovery to this Honble Court; (c) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ of any other nature or description or an Order or direction to the Government of Karnataka to investigate and to prosecute, where warranted, the government officers or public servants who have knowingly, intentionally and deliberately aided, conspired or connived with private persons to facilitate encroachment of public lands and to join such private persons in the prosecution so initiated; (d) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ of any other nature or description or an Order or direction to the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to faithfully implement the recommendations made in the report dated 30-Jun-2011 submitted by the Task Force for Recovery of Public Land and its Protection and reports dated 14-Feb-2007 and 26-Jun-2007

67
submitted by the Joint Legislature Committee of the Karnataka Legislature unless the Respondents could show a good cause to the satisfaction of this Honble Court to not so act on those recommendations; (e) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ of any other nature or description or Order or direction restraining the Respondents from alienating public lands to private persons unless the Respondents reach an objective satisfaction that such alienation would promote public good and that no such alienation be effected unless the same is in accordance with the statutory laws, regulations and binding directions that may be issued by this Honble Court; (f) Pass such other orders or directions or to issue continuing mandamus as may be deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of this case. [REST OF THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK]

68
PRAYER FOR INTERIM RELIEF: WHEREFORE, in view of the circumstances narrated above, this Honble Court may graciously be pleased, pending the complete adjudication and determination of this Writ Petition: a) to issue an ex-parte interim stay upon the Government Order No.RD 897 LGB 2010 dated 04-Jan-2011 disbanding the Task Force with effect from 04-Jul-2011 (produced as Annexure - F to this petition) and to thereby restore the Task Force and to permit it to function as if it was never disbanded; b) to direct the Respondents, consequent to the issue of prayer a) above, to provide the same support staff and infrastructure as were provided to the Task Force during the course of its earlier functioning; c) pass any other Order or to issue any direction as may be deemed expedient by this Honble Court in the circumstances of this case, in the interest of justice. AND FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, THE PETITIONERS SHALL EVER BE DUTY BOUND TO PRAY.

SRI K.V.DHANANJAY Roll No.KAR/659/2002

SRI GOPALA KRISHNA Roll No.KAR/2216/2011 Bangalore Date: 28-Mar-2013 ADVOCATES FOR PETITIONERS