"Once a State Forest, Always a Forest": Karnataka High Court’s boundary-based test, strict Section 20 exception, and a blueprint for unified geo-spatial land governance

Introduction

In M/s Prakruti Century Properties v. State of Karnataka (C/W WP No. 19674 of 2024), decided on 18 August 2025, the Karnataka High Court (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suraj Govindaraj) dismissed two writ petitions challenging show cause notices issued under Section 64A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 (KFA 1963) alleging encroachment on notified State forest land. The petitions arose from long-standing disputes over lands in Chikkasanne and Bhuvanahalli villages near Devanahalli, Bengaluru Rural—areas where real estate development (including a BIAPPA-approved layout “Century Sports Village”) intersected with a 1921 State Forest notification under the Mysore Forest Regulation, 1900 (MFR 1900).

The case placed before the Court a suite of issues:

Whether lands notified as State forest in 1921 retain that character in perpetuity absent de-notification; and whether purported later “grants” or auction sales carve out exceptions.
The scope and meaning of the exception in Section 20 of MFR 1900 (succession or grant/contract in writing made when the Section 17 notification was published).
Whether boundary descriptions in forest notifications prevail over survey numbers and measurements, especially when re-numbering has taken place.
Maintainability of writ petitions against show-cause notices under Section 64A KFA 1963.
Effect of earlier FOC proceedings (2006–07) quashed in 2012 with liberty to re-survey; validity of later surveys (2015 and 2017) and subsequent notices in 2020/2024.
Impact of pending civil suits and appeals on forest authorities’ power to proceed under Section 64A.
Whether laches/delay bars action when alleged encroachment spans decades.
Broader structural problems in land governance demonstrated by the case, and appropriate system-level remedies.

Beyond adjudicating the parties' rights, the Court issued far-reaching, systemic directions to the State—mandating a unified, GIS-based, “single source of truth” land governance architecture (ULPIN-linked), mandatory automated conflict checks before any conversion/registration/plan sanction, public transparency portals, and inter-departmental dispute resolution—all under a High-Level Committee’s oversight. The matter was posted for progress reporting on 27.10.2025, effectively as a continuing mandamus.

Summary of the Judgment

Perpetuity of State Forest Notification; strict Section 20 exception: A notification under Section 17 MFR 1900 declaring a State Forest applies in perpetuity unless the land is de-notified under Section 30. The Court held that the Section 20 exception is narrow and must be strictly proved: it covers only rights acquired by succession or by a grant/contract in writing made by/on behalf of Government (or a person empowered) when the Section 17 notification was published. Purported post-notification “grants” of 1932 (Sy. No. 69) and 1945 (Sy. No. 68)—even if assumed arguendo—do not satisfy Section 20 and cannot divest the notified forest character. No grant orders were produced.
Boundaries prevail over survey numbers and area: Following settled law and multiple precedents, the Court affirmed that in case of conflict, boundary descriptions in the forest notification prevail over survey numbers/renumbering and area measurements. The 2017 survey conducted with reference to the 08.01.1921 gazette notification showed the petition lands fall within forest boundaries; petitioners’ refusal to participate or sign the mahazar cannot defeat the result.
Maintainability against show-cause notices; limited defence under Section 64A: Ordinarily, writs do not lie against show cause notices. Relying on Godavarman and other authorities, the Court reiterated that in Section 64A proceedings, the only substantive defence is to demonstrate the land does not fall within the notified forest boundaries. On facts, that defence failed. Petitioners are allowed only to place mitigating factors relating to time for vacating.
Effect of 2012 quashing of FOC proceedings: The 2006–07 FOC cases were quashed with liberty to conduct a joint survey and proceed. The first (2015) survey, erroneously based on survey numbers rather than notification boundaries, was rightly discarded; the 2017 boundary-based survey stands. Fresh Section 64A notices in 2020/2024 were valid.
Civil suits do not bar 64A proceedings: Irrespective of civil suits or appeals filed (or withdrawn) by the Forest Department, authorities can proceed under Section 64A because the determinative test is boundary inclusion, a matter governed by the special regime under the Forest law.
No laches: Given the long pendency of disputes since at least 1981 and the continuing nature of encroachment, delay/laches is no bar.
Orders: Writ petitions dismissed. Petitioners may, within 15 days, place mitigating factors for time to vacate; authorities to consider and pass orders within 30 days. Respondents may proceed per law. The Court also issued comprehensive governance directions (detailed below) and listed the matter on 27.10.2025 for compliance reporting.

Analysis

1) Precedents Cited and Their Influence

T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad (57) v. Union of India, 2008 16 SCC 337: The Court relied on para 19 to hold that in eviction for forest encroachment under Section 64A, the only defence is to show the land is outside the forest boundary; if it lies within, eviction must follow. This shaped the Court’s narrow approach to the petitioners’ challenge at the show-cause stage.
State of Karnataka v. I.S. Nirvane Gowda: Cited to reaffirm that once land is included in a reserved forest, revenue entries or Saguvali Chits are of no consequence; revenue authorities cannot confer title. This undercut the petitioners’ reliance on revenue records and lay-out approvals.
KSRTC v. Mallaiah (Karnataka HC), and Sheodhyan Singh v. Sanichara Kuer, Narasimha Shastry v. Mangesha Devaru, Y. Subbarao v. Azizunnisa Begum: These cases reiterate the doctrine that, in case of conflict, boundaries prevail over survey numbers and area (“falsa demonstratio non nocet”). The Court used these authorities to reject arguments based on survey renumbering and area discrepancies.
Divisional Forest Officer, North Kheri v. Surjan Singh (Allahabad HC), and Girish H.E. v. State of Karnataka: These decisions articulate the scheme and finality of forest notifications (Sections 4, 20), the role of the Forest Settlement Officer, and the bar on acquisition of new rights post-notification, reinforcing the High Court’s approach that the 1921 notification is determinative absent de-notification under Section 30.
Commissioner, BDA v. Brijesh Reddy, (2013) 3 SCC 66 and State of Chhattisgarh v. Chandra Bhan Singh: Invoked to underscore that where a special statute creates a comprehensive regime and forum, civil court jurisdiction is excluded. Applied here to discount the significance of civil proceedings vis-à-vis 64A action and to emphasise the special statutory framework governing forests.
Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana: Generally, writs do not lie against show-cause notices, unless without jurisdiction or wholly illegal. The Court acknowledged this but proceeded because the core issue was purely legal (boundary-based identification and statutory bars), while still declining to quash the notices.
Sita Sahu v. State of Jharkhand, Chhedi Lal Yadav v. Hari Kishore Yadav, Nekkanti Rama Lakshmi v. State of Karnataka: These “reasonable time” cases were cited by petitioners to argue laches. The Court distinguished them on facts, holding that forest encroachment is a continuing wrong; action has been ongoing since the 1980s; hence, no bar.
B.S. Sandhu v. Government of India, Anand Arya v. Union of India, Elizabeth Jacob v. District Collector, Idukki, Godrej & Boyce v. State of Maharashtra: Petitioners invoked these to emphasise reliance on revenue records, forest identification standards, and State conduct. The Court did not accept that reliance could trump a valid forest notification and boundary-based identification; it emphasised that approvals/entries cannot undo a Section 17 notification.
Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao v. Ashalata S. Guram, S. Sridharan v. Engineer-in-Chief (WRO), Sanjay Kumar Jha v. Prakash Chandra Chaudhary: These address the scope of writ/supervisory jurisdiction over facts and show-cause notices. The Court respected these limits, focusing on the legal test (boundaries and statutory exceptions), not entering evidentiary reappreciation beyond what was ex facie clear.

2) Legal Reasoning

a) The statutory scheme: MFR 1900 Sections 3–5, 7, 13, 17, 20 and 30

Section 17: After notice, claims, settlement, and appeals procedures, Government publishes a final notification constituting the State Forest. The Court held the 08.01.1921 notification for Bhuvanahalli State Forest remains valid and unchallenged.
Section 20 (exception): “No right … shall be acquired in or over a State Forest, except by succession or under a grant/contract in writing made by or on behalf of Government (or a person empowered) when the Section 17 notification was published.” The Court read this strictly—only rights existing at the time of notification qualify. Purported “grants” of 1932/1945 (even if assumed) are post-notification; no grant orders were produced; intervening revenue auctions/sales are private transactions and cannot pass title in forest land.
Section 30: Only a Government de-notification can cause forest land to cease being a State Forest. There was none here. Therefore, “once a State Forest, always a forest” unless Section 30 is invoked.

b) Boundary-based identification prevails

The Court accepted the State’s evidence—and the Supreme Court’s remand observation in Civil Appeal No. 5801/2022—that old survey numbers (66, 67, 14) correspond to new numbers (68, 69, 30). More importantly, where boundary descriptions conflict with survey numbers/areas, boundaries prevail. The 2015 survey was rejected as it relied on survey numbers rather than 1921 notification boundaries. The 2017 survey, conducted with notice and referencing the notification’s boundaries, is determinative.

c) Show-cause notices under Section 64A KFA 1963; limited defence

While a writ against a show-cause notice is ordinarily premature (Kunisetty), the Court clarified, following Godavarman, that the only substantive defence to a Section 64A notice is to show that the land lies outside the notified forest boundaries. On facts, it does not. Petitioners may only present mitigating factors relating to time to vacate; merits do not avail them.

d) Effect of earlier quashing and pending civil suits

The 2012 quashing of FOC cases expressly reserved liberty to conduct a survey and proceed. The subsequent 2017 survey (boundary-based) restored the State’s ability to act. Civil suits—even if instituted by the Forest Department—do not bar action under Section 64A, given the special statutory regime. The decisive inquiry is whether the land lies within the 1921 notification boundaries.

e) Delay/Laches

The Court rejected the delay argument. The State’s efforts date back to at least 1979/1981, with continuous litigation since. Encroachment is a continuing wrong; protection of notified forests cannot be time-barred by passive revenue entries or later approvals.

f) Petitioners’ approvals and third-party purchasers

BIAPPA layout sanctions, release orders, and subsequent sales cannot legalize development on notified forest land. Purchasers’ remedies, if any, lie against the developers; no equity lies against the State to permit non-forest use of a State Forest.

3) The Court’s Systemic Directions: A New Governance Blueprint

Recognizing that fragmented, siloed, and paper-centered systems enable such conflicts, the Court issued comprehensive governance directions to the State of Karnataka, to be monitored by a High-Level Committee (HLC), with progress reporting on 27.10.2025. Key pillars:

Unified GIS-based land platform:
- Digitally demarcate and geo-tag all forest boundaries per gazette notifications, using FSI/ISRO remote sensing.
- Integrate forest maps with revenue cadastral maps, urban planning master plans, and land records.
- Adopt a Unique Land Parcel Identification Number (ULPIN/Bhu-Aadhaar) as the immutable identity for each parcel; QR-enabled, date-time-stamped records.
Automated conflict checks:
- Mandatory real-time conflicts screening before any conversion (Deputy Commissioner), layout sanction (planning authorities like BIAPPA), building plan approval, or registration (Sub-Registrar).
- Automatic rejection and “Conflict Alert” where a parcel intersects forest boundaries or designated no-development zones.
Public transparency portal:
- Open access to parcel-wise, colour-coded land use, ownership, litigation, and forest conflict status (via ULPIN/survey number), to enable citizen due diligence and deter fraud.
Inter-Departmental Land Dispute Resolution Cell (IDLDRC):
- Chaired by Regional Commissioners, with Revenue, Forest, and Urban Planning representation, empowered to issue binding inter-departmental rectification orders.
Mandatory geo-verification for enforcement:
- Before issuing notices or prosecuting encroachment, authorities must verify parcels against the unified geospatial database; notices to include ULPIN and geo-referenced maps.
Proactive monitoring and accountability:
- “Alert” mechanisms for detecting illegal diversions; personal accountability of officials who issue approvals in conflict with the unified system.
- Integration with e-Courts for use of geo-referenced data as primary evidence.
Citizen engagement:
- “Green Watch” mobile/web platform for citizens to report geo-tagged environmental violations.
- Consideration of afforestation-linked carbon credit incentives for measurable conservation outcomes.
Phased implementation:
- Phase I (0–3 months): Constitute IDLDRC and HLC; institute inter-departmental data-sharing protocols.
- Phase II (3–12 months): Commission unified geospatial platform and automated verification; roll out ULPIN and public portal.
- Phase III (1–2 years): Complete legacy records integration; resolve a critical mass of disputes through IDLDRC.

4) Impact Assessment

a) Substantive forest law

Clarified rule: A Section 17 MFR 1900 notification endures unless expressly de-notified under Section 30; Section 20’s exception is confined to rights existing at the date of notification (and strictly proved). Later “grants,” auctions, revenue entries, and planning approvals cannot whittle down notified forests.
Boundary-centric adjudication: Courts and authorities must rely on notification boundaries; survey number renumbering and area discrepancies cannot defeat a notified forest.
Limited defence under Section 64A: The only meritorious defence is boundary exclusion. Once boundary inclusion is shown, eviction must follow; only time to vacate may be sought as mitigation.

b) Real estate and urban planning

Due diligence standard elevated: Revenue entries and approvals (conversion orders, layout sanctions, release orders) no longer suffice; developers must verify forest boundary conflicts through authoritative geospatial layers. The forthcoming ULPIN-linked, unified portal will likely become a mandatory checkpoint for all stakeholders.
Registrar and planning authority liability: Post-implementation, approvals contrary to automated conflict checks invite personal accountability. Institutions like BIAPPA must assume a gatekeeper role under the new system.
Purchasers’ remedies: End-buyers may need to pursue contractual remedies against developers; State owes no estoppel when notified forest land is involved.

c) Litigation and enforcement

64A prioritised over civil suits: Forest authorities may prefer Section 64A action (boundary-based) over civil disputes on title, which are not determinative vis-à-vis notified forests.
Reduced evidentiary contest: With geospatial, legally authenticated maps as primary evidence, boundary disputes may narrow, accelerating resolution.

d) Governance

Replicable model: The Court’s geospatial, ULPIN-driven “single source of truth” framework is a model other States can emulate. It operationalises the preventive mandate of forest law through technology and inter-departmental coordination.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Reserved/State Forest (MFR 1900): Land is declared a State Forest after a statutory process (notice, inquiry, settlement of claims, appeals) culminating in a Section 17 notification. From the notified date, it is a State Forest.
De-notification (Section 30 MFR 1900): Only a fresh Government notification can cause a State Forest (or part) to cease being one. Without this, the forest status continues indefinitely.
Section 20 exception (MFR 1900): Despite the general bar on acquiring rights in a State Forest, a person can claim rights by (i) succession, or (ii) a grant/contract in writing made by/on behalf of Government (or an empowered person) when the Section 17 notification was published. Later grants/auctions/transactions typically do not qualify.
Boundary vs. survey numbers: If boundary description conflicts with survey numbers or area, boundaries prevail. Survey numbers can change over time; boundaries do not.
Section 64A KFA 1963: Enables summary eviction of unauthorised occupants of forest lands. After Godavarman, the defence is limited: prove your land is outside the forest boundary; otherwise eviction follows.
ULPIN: Unique Land Parcel Identification Number—a stable, universal identifier for each land parcel. Linking all textual and spatial data to ULPIN, and public transparency, reduces fraud and conflicts.

Conclusion

This judgment decisively reaffirms core forest-law principles in Karnataka:

Perpetuity of forest notification: A Section 17 MFR 1900 notification persists unless expressly de-notified under Section 30; no amount of subsequent revenue entries, auctions, or administrative approvals can dislodge it.
Strict Section 20 exception: Only rights existing at the time of notification and strictly proved qualify; post-notification “grants” and private transactions are legally ineffective against a notified forest.
Boundaries control: Boundary descriptions in forest notifications prevail over survey numbers/renumbering and area discrepancies.
Narrow scope at show-cause stage: Under Section 64A, the judicial inquiry is effectively confined to the boundary inclusion question; mitigation goes to time, not title.
Governance transformation: The Court’s forward-looking directions—unified geospatial land platform, automated conflict checks, ULPIN adoption, public portals, inter-departmental resolution, and accountability—offer a concrete, implementable blueprint to prevent such conflicts at scale, enhance transparency, and protect forests.

In the broader legal context, the decision exemplifies how constitutional courts can harmonise doctrinal clarity with systemic reform. It cautions developers, authorities, and citizens alike: the era of relying solely on revenue records and fragmented approvals is over. The law, firmly anchored in boundary-defined forest protection, now demands and will be supported by a technologically integrated, transparent land-governance infrastructure.