Forest dept may lose 65 acres of Peenya plantation due to 'erroneous' order

Thanks to the revenue department's 'erroneous' 1965 order to rule it in favour of several individuals, the forest area may soon become private property. The land is worth over Rs 700 crore.

Bengaluru: As many as 65 acres of 'reserved forest' in Peenya plantation in north Bengaluru created over a century ago may soon become private property, thanks to the revenue department's 'erroneous' 1965 order to rule it in favour of several individuals. The land is worth over Rs 700 crore.

Peenya plantation spread over 599 acres was created through Mysore Gazette notification dated May 29, 1896. Later, it was declared as a 'State Forest' with a gazette notification dated January 7, 1901. At present, 185 acres in Survey Number 1 and 414 acre in Survey number 2 (total 599 acres) enjoy the status of 'Reserved Forest' under the Karnataka State forest Act.

However, in an order dated May 24, 1965, the Special Deputy Commissioner for Inam Abolition ruled 65 acres in Survey Number 2 belonged to certain individuals. Sources said the forest department did not know the passing of the order.

The Revenue Department became aware of the erroneous order in 2002, when the tahsildar flagged the illegal entries in the records to the then special deputy commissioner. In 2009, the deputy commissioner issued an order that the "entire procedure" adopted for his predecessor's May 24, 1965 order was "illegal".

Dismissing the claims of 74 individuals, the deputy commissioner's order stated that documents were fabricated and the "proceedings appear to have been prepared by the tahsildar and special deputy commissioner for Inam Abolition has merely affixed his signature in order to make it an order".

In June 2022, however, the high court of Karnataka, quashed the deputy commissioner's order on technical grounds and ordered that restoration of revenue entries as they stood prior to the deputy commissioner's 2009 order.

The high court held that the power conferred on the deputy commissioner under the Land Revenue Act was to verify the entries in revenue records and "the deputy commissioner would have no jurisdiction to come to the conclusion that the order on the basis of which mutation was made was itself incorrect".

Meanwhile, the forest department, which was not a party to the case in the high court, became aware of the matter in the beginning of this year after the deputy commissioner enquired its stand on the matter.

Last month, the deputy conservator of forests, Bengaluru Urban, noted that the claim by Gajendra and others over the plantation land is unsustainable. The claim that survey numbers 127 and 157 of Peenya village were turned into Survey Number 2 of Peenya plantation were found to be untrue.

Pointing to the original 'tippani' (note), the DCF said Peenya plantation was created in 1896 by keeping survey number 127 out of the notified area. "As per the 1925 map of Peenya village, there is no survey number 157. In fact, the last survey number of Peenya village is 133," the DCF said. Further, the DCF pointed out diverting a reserved forest land for non-forest purposes requires permission from the Centre under the Forest (Conservation) Act.

Last month, the high court heard a contempt petition against the deputy commissioner. The officials were given six weeks time to restore the revenue entries.

To a question, Bengaluru Urban deputy commissioner Dayananda K A said he could not comment on the matter. Officials in the revenue department said the government will move the Supreme Court against the high court's order.

DCF Bengaluru Urban Raveendra Kumar N said he has provided all the necessary information to the revenue authorities.