Wed Jul 16 15:14:46 UTC 2025: Here’s a summary and a news article based on the provided text:
**Summary:**
The Karnataka High Court has expressed strong disapproval of the Forest Department’s decision to file a criminal case against an Assistant Commissioner (AC) for a quasi-judicial order he issued. The AC had designated certain land as “Government Gomal” (grazing land under the Revenue Department), contradicting the Forest Department’s claim that it was forestland. The court found it shocking that the Forest Department would pursue criminal charges against an official for performing his duties, especially since the AC’s order didn’t involve transferring land to private entities. The court ultimately quashed the criminal complaint, stating that allowing it to continue would be a miscarriage of justice.
**News Article:**
**Karnataka High Court Condemns Forest Department’s Case Against Revenue Official**
**Bengaluru, July 16, 2025** – The High Court of Karnataka has sharply criticized the state Forest Department for filing a criminal case against an Assistant Commissioner (AC) of the Revenue Department over a land dispute. Justice M. Nagaprasanna quashed the complaint, deeming it an abuse of the legal process.
The case stems from a 2022 order by B.A. Jagadeesh, the then AC of Hassan sub-division, who designated land in Tyavalli village as “Government Gomal” (grazing land). This contradicted the Forest Department’s assertion that the land was forestland. The Forest Department, led by IFoS officer Saurabh Kumar, filed a criminal complaint against Jagadeesh in 2024, alleging violations of the Forest (Conservation) Act of 1980.
The High Court expressed its shock that the Forest Department would pursue criminal charges against an official for performing his quasi-judicial duties. Justice Nagaprasanna emphasized that the AC’s order did not involve transferring land to private entities, but rather designated it as land belonging to the Revenue Department, a designation supported by historical records.
“What shocks the conscience of the court is the Forest Department registering a crime for the performance of the AC’s quasi-judicial functions,” the court stated.
The court also noted that the Forest Department had initially appealed the AC’s decision and secured a remand for reconsideration before filing the criminal complaint. Allowing the case to continue, the court ruled, would result in a miscarriage of justice, and it quashed the complaint. The move is likely to raise questions about the boundaries between different governmental departments and the potential for overreach in pursuing legal action against officials performing their duties.
First Piper 