Kolar: In a major revelation that has put former Speaker KR Ramesh Kumar in the spotlight, investigators have confirmed that he illegally acquired and encroached upon a substantial forest area of 60 acres and 23 guntas located in the Srinivasapura taluk of Kolar district. This significant finding follows a joint survey mandated by the High Court, emphasising the accountability of political figures in land-related offences.
The joint survey involved a meticulous examination by a team of officials from the Revenue, Forest, and Land Survey Departments, assessing the Jinagalakunte forest area. The detailed report generated from this survey was submitted to the Conservator of Forests for the Bengaluru Circle by the Deputy Conservator of Forests on January 24, 2025. This report not only highlights the encroachment but also lays bare the negligence present in the management and oversight of forest land usage.
Ramesh Kumar was present during the survey, during which officials established clear evidence of encroachment through map documentation. The report specifies that the encroached land consists of 60 acres and 23 guntas within the designated forest area, confirming that these lands belong to the state and are protected under various environmental laws.
According to Section 64 of the Karnataka Forest Act of 1963, the report dictates that the encroached land must be cleared and all appropriate legal actions taken against inappropriate land grants related to this encroachment. It has been recommended that a prompt cancellation of the illegal land grant be enacted to restore legal order in the region.
Moreover, the Deputy Conservator of Forests has indicated that K.R. Ramesh Kumar must compensate for the environmental damage caused by this illegal occupation of forest land. This follows established practices under the Forest Conservation Act of 1980, which emphasizes the need for conservation and penalization for illegal exploitation of forest resources.
The report has also called for a criminal case to be lodged against those revenue officials who facilitated Ramesh Kumar’s encroachment through the issuance of fraudulent documents. This includes asking for contempt of court proceedings to be initiated against various revenue department officials who have failed in their duty to protect forest land effectively.
A particularly troubling detail in this saga is that Kumar reportedly signed off on documentation acknowledging his encroachment on the forest area. His admission starkly contradicts the claims of innocence often proclaimed by politicians in similar situations. The signed report explicitly states he acknowledged illegally appropriating forest land in both Survey No. 1 and 2 of Hosahudya village, underscoring his awareness and willful participation in this illegal activity.
In his own words, Kumar acknowledged: “I have signed in my own handwriting that the respondent 9 of Writ Petition No. 35827/2024 has illegally encroached on 6 acres and 23 guntas of forest area in Survey No. 1 of Hosahudya village, which is a notified forest area.”
These statements not only exacerbate the allegations against him but also call into question the integrity of local government officials who facilitated the encroachment. Many observers have expressed outrage at the apparent complicity of both the Kolar District Collector and the Survey Officer, who provided a seemingly one-sided report downplaying Kumar’s illegal actions. The Deputy Conservator of Forests has raised objections to this report and has detailed where lapses occurred during the joint survey process and how Kumar was shielded from due scrutiny.
The findings from the joint survey paint a troubling picture of inadequate environmental oversight within local governmental practices. The joint physical survey conducted by the Forest and Revenue Departments has clarified boundaries and ownership issues in a manner that starkly reveals the illegal actions taken by Ramesh Kumar.
The joint survey map denoted several key points confirming the boundaries of the forest land in question as documented since November 13, 1944. Points such as B1, B2, B3, B4, and B5 demarcate the forest area, with the encroached region verified by officials during the survey.
The survey identified discrepancies in the documentation process, where the boundaries were not clearly marked by the revenue department, leading to misunderstandings regarding the delineation of encroached land versus legitimately acquired property. The report identifies that out of a total area of 120 acres 38 guntas acknowledged, significantly more land than claimed by Kumar falls under the protected forest zone, thereby highlighting a systemic failure in maintaining proper records and regulations governing forest land.
High Court writ cases (Nos. 39676/2010 and 12996/2012) further complicate matters, asserting that significant portions of Ramesh Kumar’s claims concerning land purchases overlap with forest boundaries. The thorough investigation uncovered that 33 acres and 31 guntas of the land in question are indeed within the notified forest area, while others fall under revenue land, once again raising questions about the governance and oversight of local land allocation practices.
