Karnataka High Court
Sri Y.N. Ragunath vs The Chief Conservator Of Forest on 28 March, 2016
Bench: Chief Justice, Ravi Malimath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 28th day of March, 2016
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
Writ Appeal No. 1736 of 2015 (GM-FOR)
C/w
Writ Appeal No. 1611 of 2015 (GM-FOR)
In Writ Appeal No. 1736 of 2015
BETWEEN:
SRI Y.N. RAGUNATH
S/O LATE Y D NANJAPPA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT NARGANE VILLAGE
KUSHALNAGAR HOBLI
SOMWARPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 219
REP. BY HIS GENERAL POWER
ATTORNEY HOLDER
SRI N S SHYAM KUMAR S/O SHEKARAN
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/T VIRAJPET, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 219 ... APPELLANT
[Sri A K Subbaiah, Advocate a/w
Ms Leela P Devadiga, Advocate]
AND:
THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
KODAGU CIRCLE, MADIKERI
KODAGU DISTRICT ... RESPONDENT
(Sri Y H Vijay Kumar, AGA]
2
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 4974 OF 2014 DATED
MARCH 5, 2015 AND ETC.
In Writ Appeal No. 1611 of 2015
BETWEEN:
THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
KODAGU CIRCLE
MADIKERI
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 219 .. APPELLANT
(Sri Y H Vijay Kumar, AGA]
AND:
SRI Y.N. RAGUNATH
S/O LATE Y.D. NANJAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
R/AT NARGANE VILLAGE,
KUSHALNAGAR HOBLI,
SOMWARPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 219.
REP. BY HIS GENERAL POWER
OF ATTORNEY HOLDER
SRI N.S. SHYAM KUMAR,
S/O SHEKARAN,
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT PAJERPET, VIRAJPET TOWN,
KODAGU DISTRICT-571 219 ... RESPONDENT
[Sri A K Subbaiah, Advocate]
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.4974 OF 2014 DATED
MARCH 5, 2015 AND ETC.
THESE APPEALS, ALONG WITH INTERLOCUTORY
APPLICATIONS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE
APPEALS, ARE COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, THE CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
3
JUDGMENT
Order on I.A.No.I of 2015 in W.A.No.1736 of 2015 and I.A.No.II of 2015 in W.A.No.1611 of 2015 Both these writ appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated March 5, 2015, passed by the Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No.4974 of 2014.
2. Both the writ appeals are barred by limitation.
3. In Writ Appeal No.1736 of 2015, Mr.A.K.Subbaiah, learned advocate, appears for the writ petitioner -appellant and Mr.Y.H.Vijaykumar, learned additional government advocate, accepts notice for the respondent, who is, also, the appellant in Writ Appeal No.1611 of 2015.
4. Therefore, formal service of notice of the applications for condonation of delay on the respondent in the respective writ appeals is dispensed with.
5. After hearing Mr.A.K.Subbbaiah, learned advocate and Mr.Y.H.Vijaykumar, learned additional government advocate and considering the explanations offered in the applications for condonation of delay, we are of the opinion 4 that the appellants in both the writ appeals were prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the writ appeals in time.
6. Therefore, the delay in filing both the writ appeals is condoned.
7. The applications for condonation of delay stand allowed.
8. We make no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT IN MAIN APPEALS:
9. Both the writ petitioner and the respondent are appellants before us, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated March 5, 2015, passed in Writ Petition No 4974 of 2014.
10. Admittedly, the writ petitioner is in occupation of certain extent of paradeena bane land. There were certain trees in the land and the writ petitioner made a request to the authorities seeking permission to remove the trees. The timber was to be sold in public auction as there cannot be any private transaction in so far as rosewood is concerned. The Deputy Conservator of Forests granted 5 the request of the writ petitioner for chopping the trees. Accordingly, the writ petitioner chopped the trees and transported the logs to the government depot. The government depot sold the timber in public auction for a sum of ` 1,36,69,000/- [Rupees one crore thirty-six lakh sixty-nine thousand] only. The writ petitioner requested for refund of 90% per centum of the amount, on the ground that the trees were grown after the land became paradeena bane land.
11. Mr Y H Vijay Kumar, learned additional government advocate, appearing for the respondent in the writ petition, submits that the trees grown in a paradeena bane land belong to the State and the writ petitioner has no right in respect of those trees.
12. In the statement of objections filed by the respondent there is a categorical admission that the trees grown in the land in question were planted and grown by the owner after the land became paradeena bane land. There is a categorical statement by the writ petitioner that the trees 6 were grown after the land became paradeena bane land. There was no denial in the statement of objections.
13. Consequently, the Hon'ble Single Judge held that the writ petitioner was entitled to refund of 90% per centum of the sale proceeds together with interest at the rate of 9% per centum per annum and directed the Chief Conservator of Forests to release a sum of ` 1,22,97,664/- [Rupees one crore twenty-two lakh ninety-seven thousand six hundred and sixty-four] only in favour of the writ petitioner with interest at 9% per centum per annum from the date of auction till the date of payment.
14. Mr A K Subbaiah, learned advocate for the writ petitioner, submits that there has been an interim order directing payment of interest at the rate of 18% per centum per annum.
15. We are informed by Mr Y H Vijay Kumar, learned additional government advocate, that, already, the principal amount of ` 1,22,97,664/- [Rupees one crore twenty-two lakh ninety-seven thousand six hundred and 7 sixty-four] only has been paid to the writ petitioner. Mr Subbaiah, also, accepts such position.
16. We, therefore, hold that the writ petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per centum per annum from the date of auction till the date of actual payment.
17. With the above modification, these appeals are disposed of.
18. We make no order as to costs.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE * bkv/pjk