Karnataka HC quashes criminal case against ex-Hassan assistant commissioner over forest land

Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has quashed the proceedings against a former assistant commissioner of Hassan sub-division in a criminal case filed by the Deputy Conservator of Forests (DCF), Hassan. 

BA Jagadeesh, presently working as Project Director, District Urban Development Cell, Hassan, challenged the private complaint initiated by Saurabh Kumar, DCF, Hassan. 

The controversy pertains to a 61.32-acre land in survey number 22 in Tyavalli village in Shanthigrama hobli in Hassan taluk. 

A man named T D Dasegowda had sought information under RTI, copies of mutation, orders of higher authorities and other court orders recording the land at survey number 22 as forest land. In October 2020, a reply was furnished stating that the documents requested by Dasegowda were not available in the office records. 

Pursuant to this reply, Dasegowda filed an appeal seeking correction of ‘forest’ entry to ‘Sarkari Gomala’ in the land records. After conducting hearings from July 23, 2021, to December 17, 2021, Jagadeesh ordered the restoration of the entry as Sarkari Gomala, noting the Forest Department’s inability to prove the land’s forest classification. 

The department moved the deputy commissioner challenging this order. On September 26, 2023, the DC directed a fresh hearing within six months. The controversy pertains to a 61.32-acre land in survey number 22 in Tyavalli village in Shanthigrama hobli in Hassan taluk. 

Subsequent to this, the department filed a private complaint against Jagadeesh, leading to registration of a case under the Forest Conservation Act, 2023. 

The petitioner argued that the complaint, registered under the Forest Conservation Act and Rules, exceeded the six-month period for such offences. He also argued that the petitioner, as quasi-judicial authority, performed his duties under Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. 

However, the government advocate argued that once a forest, it is always a forest land and that Bamboo, Honne, Tapsi and other trees grown in the land indicate that it is a forest land. 

Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that the assistant commissioner’s order cannot but be said to be in exercise of quasi-judicial function. He further noted that the DC’s order remitting the matter back to the hands of the assistant commissioner is still pending. The jurisdictional court ought not to have entertained the complaint as the complaint lodged after two years, which is barred by limitation, the court said. 

“Over and above the aforesaid finding, what shocks the conscience of the court is that the Forest Department registering a crime for the performance of the petitioner’s quasi-judicial functions. As an assistant commissioner, looking into the records, he has passed an order, not bartering away the forest land to private entity, but observing it as a Sarkari Gomala. Appeal is a remedy which is exercised by the Forest Department. After having filed an appeal and secured an order of remand to consider the issue afresh, it did not lie with the Forest Department to register a crime against the petitioner for having performed his quasi-judicial functions, unless it is found the exercise of such function is laced with criminality and foundationed on mens rea,” the court said.