Bengaluru : In a significant move, Karnataka Appellate Tribunal (KAT) dismissed an appeal urging the govt to regularise 413 acres of land in Hireshakuna village in Soraba, Shivamogga district, reiterating that kanu land cannot be diverted or granted for private cultivation.The tribunal upheld cancellation of land grants in survey No 113, ruling that the area is classified as kanu forest land — ecologically sensitive evergreen forest patches — and enjoys statutory protection under Karnataka Land Revenue Act and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.The verdict comes at a time when ecologically fragile kanu forests along the Western Ghats are increasingly facing pressure from unauthorised cultivation, infrastructure projects, and attempts to regularise parcels through revenue proceedings.
While condoning a delay of 728 days in filing the appeal, KAT declined to interfere with the orders of the assistant commissioner, Sagar sub-division, and district deputy commissioner, who had set aside the grants.The appellants had claimed long-standing occupation and cultivation prior to 1991, but the tribunal ruled that allotted land was unequivocally recorded as kanu in village maps, revenue records, and forest working plans, and was therefore legally ineligible for grant.It said, if left unchecked, such grants pose a serious threat to the survival of kanu land. The tribunal held that occupants of kanu land possess only limited privileges over forest produce and do not acquire ownership or cultivation rights. Regularisation of unauthorised occupation on such lands is expressly prohibited under Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966, and Karnataka Land Revenue Act.KAT also noted that the land in question falls within 3km of Soraba town limits attracting statutory protection which prohibits grant of govt land within specified distances from town limits. It observed that the land grant committee and the tahsildar ignored these prohibitions while granting the land.Referring to Supreme Court order in the Godavarman case and high court verdicts, it emphasised that prior approval of the central govt is mandatory for diversion of forest land for non-forest purposes. It pointed out that no such approval was obtained in the present case.Conservationists cheered the ruling, calling it a significant reaffirmation of legal safeguards meant to protect kanu land from gradual erosion through administrative lapses or unlawful regularisation, and a cautionary message to revenue authorities against granting forest land under the guise of regularising unauthorised occupation.