A huge land of 430 acres in Peenya plantation was ordered back to Forest Dept

Between 1996 and 2006, HMT alienated about 178 acres and 7.2 guntas located in Survey No. 1 and 2 of Peenya Plantation and Survey No. 18 and 19 of Jarakbande Sandal Reserve in favor of 44 government agencies, institutions, organizations and private establishments. | Photo credit: FILE PHOTO

In the ongoing dispute over land owned by Hindustan Machine Tools (HMT) Ltd. in Jalahalli, Bengaluru, a public sector undertaking (PSU) was asked to hand over 430 acres and 21 guntas in Peenya Plantation and Jarakabande Sandal Reserve to the forest department within 30 days after a court found it to be forest land.

During the proceedings under Section 64 A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963, the court of the Authorized Officer and Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bengaluru Urbana, N. Ravindra Kumar, found the lands in Survey No. 1 and 2 of Peenya Plantation and Survey No. 18 and 19 of Jarakabande Sandal Reserve to be forest land.

The court terminated HMT’s holding of the land as unauthorized and illegal and asked the jurisdictional forest manager to initiate the process of clearance and recovery in case the PSU fails to comply with the order. The HMT may appeal to the Conservator of Forests (Territorial), Bengaluru.

While former Forest Minister Eshwar Khandre initiated the restoration of the land, which was later to be converted into a tree park, it led to political unrest after Union Industries Minister HD Kumaraswamy objected to the move. HMT also moved the Karnataka High Court, which barred the forest department from expropriating land without due process of law.

The forest department pointed out during the proceedings that the former Maharaja of Mysore had declared 599 acres in the Peenya Jalahalli plantation and the entire survey in the Jarkabande Sandal Reserve in 1901 and 1932 as forest.

The state government also pointed out that the land was not designated under the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963. In 2018, the Union Minister for Environment, Forests and Climate also confirmed that the land was forest on 25 October 1980 and fell under the Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan, 1980) Adhiniyam.

HMT justified the sale of land as part of a rehabilitation package after the PSU was declared sick by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), HMT issued a government order of 1961 sanctioning 216 acres in its favor, submitted a grant certificate in respect of 180 acres of 26 guntas and 77 acres of 20 executed 20 guntas in Peerenyareation township and representative of Municipal Authority de Bangalore. and HMT associated with the transfer of 185 acres under a 1963 Government Order.

Referring to the orders of the Supreme Court in State of Bihar Vs. Banshi Ram Modi (1985) and TN Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India (1997), the DCF order dated 15 June 2026 stated that any diversion of forest land must strictly trace its power to valid compliance and central approval which did not act merely as a representative Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. exercising power and had no independent power to alienate forest land, citing the judgment Supreme Court in MC Mehta v. Union of India (1997).

It also noted that the HMT had not produced the original government orders under which the lands were allegedly released and transferred. HMT has also not produced any material to show that the plots have been cancelled. Incidentally, the Forest Act, 1980 prohibits de-reservation or diversion of forest land without prior approval of the Union Government.

“The HMT, being fully aware of the forest nature of the land allotted to it, should have returned the land to the state government when it was no longer required for the purpose for which it was granted,” the order said. It noted that the transfer of land by HMT in favor of third-party establishments must be reviewed in the light of existing forest laws and constitutional environmental obligations.

Published – 05 Jul 2026 20:01 IST