As per the case facts, the respondent's ancestors purchased property that was later forfeited to the Government due to unpaid revenue, though the family maintained possession. The land was then ... transferred to the Forest Department, but a High Court order directed its restoration to the respondent. The State appealed, and the Division Bench upheld the restoration, leading to this appeal to the Supreme Court. The question arose whether land transferred to the Forest Department should be restored to the respondent under Rule 119(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966. Finally, the Supreme Court granted leave and dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgment. The Court affirmed that the Forest Department could not have intervened, considering the respondent's continuous possession and prior orders for restoration.