Karnataka High Court
Sri. J.R. Venkataramu vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 October, 2018
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.51039 OF 2012(GM-FOR)
BETWEEN
1. SRI. J. R. VENKATARAMU
S/O LATE SRI J T RANGAPPA
AGED 71 YEARS
2. SMT. B. A. RATHNAMMA
W/O SRI J. R. VENKATARAMU
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF BYARAVALLI VILLAGE
MALLANDUR POST, AVATHI HOBLI
CHIKMAGALUR TALUK
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577201.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VINAYAKA B, ADVOCATE A/W
SRI. ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
M. S. BUILDING
BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
(LAND RECORDS)
ARANYA BHAVAN, II FLOOR
18TH CROSS, MALLESHAWARAM
BANGALORE-560 003.
-2-
3. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER
CHIKMAGALUR DIVISION
CHIKMAGALUR - 577001.
4. RANGE FOREST OFFICER
MUTODI RANGE
MUTHODI,
CHIKMAGALUR TALUK AND DIST.
& APPELLATE AUTHORITY
CHIKMAGALUR CIRCLE
CHIKMAGALUR.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T.S. MAHANTESH, AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER DT: 04.1.2012 PASSED BY R-2 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A & THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED VIDE NOTICE
DT:05.1.2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-A1.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioners are before this Court questioning the order at Annexure-A, dated 04.01.2012 passed by the Chief Conservator of Forests (Land Records) rejecting the request made by the petitioners for fixing malki value of the standing trees and for permission to fell the trees. -3-
2. The petitioners are owners of lands bearing Sy.No.173 having two portions measuring 16 acres and 30 acres, situated at Byaravalli village, Avathi Hobli, Chikmagaluru Taluk and District. The lands were granted under two Grant Certificates issued by the competent authorities on 02.12.1980. During the year 1982, the forest authorities issued notice to the petitioners calling upon them to vacate the lands, on the premise that the lands were Reserved Forest lands. The petitioners approached this Court in W.P.Nos.31343-31345/1982. After due consideration, this Court held that the lands were gomal lands and not Reserved Forest lands. Insofar as the notices issued by the Forest Authorities, this Court held that the petitioners were in lawful occupation and possession of the lands and the respondents were precluded from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the lands. The notices issued by the respondents therein were quashed. The State of Karnataka and Forest Authorities preferred an appeal in -4- W.A.Nos.2050-2052/1990, which was dismissed on 13.08.1991. Subsequently, the matter was taken up to the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.1728-30/1992. The said Special Leave Petition was dismissed, since there was no merit.
3. The petitioners had been making representations from the year 1981, to the Forest Authorities, to fix the malki value of the standing trees and thereafter permit the petitioners to pay malki value of the trees. When the applications were not considered, the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P.Nos.37729/2011 and 39577/2011. This Court noticed that the question as to whether the lands were Reserved Forest lands or gomal lands stood decided in the earlier round of litigation and therefore directed the respondents by order dated 19.11.2011, to consider the representations made by the petitioners keeping in mind the need to preserve and protect coffee plantation of the petitioners and also various orders passed by this Court including the order -5- passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs Union of India. In the light of the directions issued by this Court in W.P.No.37729/2011 and 39577/2011, the Chief Conservator of Forests (Land Records) has passed the impugned order dated 04.01.2012 rejecting the applications made by the petitioners. Being aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court.
4. A reading of the impugned order dated 04.01.2012 would clearly establish that the said order is perverse, illegal and travels beyond the jurisdiction of the quasi-judicial officer. In the entire order, the Chief Conservator of Forests has criticized the decision of this Court which held that the lands in questions are gomal lands and not Reserved Forest lands. The officer has quoted any number of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to contend that the decision of this Court was contrary to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the ultimate analysis, the officer holds that the lands in -6- question are Reserved Forest lands and therefore the request for fixing malki value and permission to fell the standing trees were rejected.
5. A high ranking officer holding the post of Chief Conservator of Forests should be aware of his jurisdiction, limits of power attached to his office and quasi-judicial powers that are vested in the office. The officer had no business to venture into analyzing the decision of this Court as to whether the lands in question are gomal lands or Reserved Forest lands. When the matter has been decided by this Court and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the officer could not have ventured into further analyzing the decision of this Court and proceeding to hold that the lands are Reserved Forest lands.
6. What is painful is that in the statement of objections filed on behalf of the respondents, they seek to justify the decision of the Chief Conservator of Forests and toe the lines of the Chief Conservator of Forests, saying that the lands are Reserved Forest lands and therefore, -7- seek to justify the impugned order passed by the Chief Conservator of Forests.
7. The impugned order is perverse, capricious and unsustainable in the eye of law. As noted above, it was not within the jurisdiction of the Chief Conservator of Forests to hold that lands are Reserved Forest lands.
8. Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, appearing for the petitioners submits that under Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976, an application could be made to the Tree Officer, seeking permission to fell the trees.
9. The petitioners may approach the competent authority seeking fixation of malki value and permission to fell the standing trees. The competent authority shall proceed to pass orders on the applications made by the petitioners, including assessment of the malki value and permission to fell the standing trees.
-8-
10. At this juncture, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that after passing the impugned order on 04.01.2012 at Annexure-A, the Chief Conservator of Forests has proceeded to pass another order dated 05.01.2012 at Annexure 'A1', calling upon the petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be summarily evicted from the schedule land, under the provision of Section 64A of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963.
11. It is seen from the record that by an order dated 18.04.2013, this Court had granted interim stay of Annexures-A and A1 for a period of three months. Thereafter, Rule was issued on 04.06.2013 and the interim order was continued. In the light of the above discussion, it is clear that the order dated 05.01.2012 also suffers from the same vice as was committed by the officer while passing the order dated 04.01.2012. In fact, the impugned orders dated 04.01.2012 and 05.01.2012 borders on contempt of Court.
-9-
12. For the reasons stated above, the orders dated 04.01.2012 and 05.01.2012 at Annexures-A and A1 deserve to be quashed and set aside and are accordingly quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute.
With these observations, the writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
SD/-
JUDGE DL