Karnataka High Court
K P Prabakar vs Deputy Conservator Of Forest on 24 September, 2008
Equivalent citations: 2009 (3) AIR KAR R 410
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar
Between: Sri. P.K. Subbaiah, S/ o. Late Kareppa, Aged about 90 years, Palangala Village, Karada Post, Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District. A V P. Riyad, S/o. P.C. I-Iasainar Hajee,' Aged about 29 years, " Timber Merchant, Madikeri Road, Siddapur Town, Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District. 1' . ' And: V 'v Deputy Conservator 'Of;F<)res:'t, =i Viregpet Division, 1,7ire'tj'pe1;. 'V __ Between: Sri. N.A.V K_averaf3'pa,i ' . S/o. N.(;. Appanna,' ~ " 'Aged a};cu:_4s years, Paiarigala village, Virajpet Tel'-Jik, Kodagu district. '3?.Riyad._. a ' S /.0. .1.-?_e..c. 'IIasainari'Ha'jee, Aged about 2'9.yeares, " Timber_E\/£erc11a1it',§\/Iadikeri Road, Siddaptir Town ;' Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu district. A:n'd:i 'L K Fieputy Conservator of Forest, -. _4Vir"a_1'pet Division, Virgpet. : Apfiellant : Respondent
: Appellant : Respondent Between :
Cherumandanda Kammavva, W/ o. Late Cherurnandanda Aiyanna, Aged about 77 years ».
Kirundadu Village, Napoklu NAD, I Madikeri Taluk, Kodagu District, P. Riyad, S/o. P.C. I-Iassainar Hajee, Aged about 29 years, Timber Merchant, Madikeri Road, ' Siddapur Town, Virajpet Taluk, -- &_ Kodagu District. ':':".ppeiIant And:
The Deputy Conservator of Fox-'::st,f -- A I g Virajpet Division, Virajpet, Kodagut; : Respondent This tiT.ed:.U[S--..._4 'of itheflfiarnataka High Court Act praying to set aside the order' pajssed in W;fit'Petition No. 18979, 18980, 18981 as 18982 /'"2065<§1ated__1'4,_O2.29Q7. Thisiivvfits appeal '(%:jr::.ir1'gpon for prelimiriary hearing, this day, the court delivered the'feiI.Q_vving:a..pV _ . . g9QJufifiMENT ~ (_liDe1ivcred'.bv"l:3.D. DINAKARAN, ca) appeal ai'is'es"from and is directed against the order Visa-tea" in WP 18979~82/03 dismissing the writ petiitions as merit.
" pp p The-petitionersappellants claiming to be the owners of the it gcoifa'i"eie_ piantations which are fully assessed to revenue sought "--.iVi;perti1ission of the respondents to cut and remove the standing .. _44;trees in the plantation as they were providing excess shade which is not conducive for the coffee plants. The respondentsvperrnitted them to cut the standing trees but when permissionmtvas for removing the cut logs, the respondents demai'1ded.pa§lmentVp_ of = p seigniorage. The petitioners being agigrievedp demand filed the writ petitions seeking for "declaration: respondent has no manner of right'i't.o;"c1.aim the trees and for a direction to the first': transport pass to transport the tree logs cut of which the petitioners are t1:1e\ on hearing the petitioners the writ petition.
Being aggrievedlthe p?:tietio'ners a:"e"befoVre us in this appeal. 3.1) We heard the courisel on both sides.
__3.2) learned " counsel for the petitioners submits that the in questionvare paradeena lands fully assessed on account of ".:;Qffee.1cultixzatilonfthe petitioners are the absolute owners of the trees "'stan._di1:-gi" thereon and the respondents could not have it hp"ademandeduseigniorage for permitting the removal of the cut logs. l the other hand it is the submission of learned Govt. .l?ld_Vocate that the lands in question are not paradhina (alienated) ~ uilands and they continue to be jarnma bane lands. It is his /'K §;.i-t.,"
\'s g , 1 52/ !E! submission that they have not been detached from the'"service yoke of warg lands to which they were attached Ellfltivillif-f.;.:l'€'V'11t)t assessed at any time. According to the learned the schedule lands continued to be jarnn'xa.bane as "there wfaszno ' corresponding provision in the Ka1'i*i<ata;l{fi§. 1964 which corresponds to ofithye V Revenue Regulation, 1899 and rules__I3_6, 1.'64«.and_E167 of the Rules made thereunder. V .1earrre'cl_ 'Advocate relied upon the entries made in the-RT.C:=whe1=e_ini."these'lands have been shown as if su_bn1itsVVV'tl1at the claim of the petitionerstc~.th'e. con*t;rary'* .is'*11nfoi1'ndeVd and baseless.
4) Wezhave giyen.:"ou1=.cVareful consideration to the submission of both sides. if 5.1) ,.$efo1~'e we Vp1'<.>ceed_to decide the question as to whether or notnthe _peAtiti.on.ers are entitled to the trees standing on these lands-.p_aAsV"fuil.,__owr2e.rs thereof, a brief reference to the history of V _ thesellandsiis necessary in order to understand the very nature of thespe lands which factum has a direct bearing on the question to _ beVVd*ete.rmined in these appeals.
5.2) In the Coorg part of the State, the Kodavas who ceased to be the ruling class clung to their land as landlordsppppaivingrtr.only half the full revenue and this tenure is called jaxrninai With every holding of jamrna land the""holder7_4a1sofacquVix'ed are ' use of an appurtenant plot of destined to supply the warg--holdier"'with grazixxgt 1 fire.» i wood but the produce must be used iordornestic supply and if the timber is cut then the occupant is liable to pay seig,n.orage:.forv:th'e ivood. This position did not get altered it'r1e::"<:or:hir.1ig the Land Revenue Act, 1964» ('the fez, short) ' i 5.3) TheA'Act"repea:led.' "enactments and the Coorg Land Revenue.Reguilati011r.189.9 one such and the said Regulation " figures%ati,.S.1.N~on. 15 of the 'schedule to Sec.202. 5ii."4_) Coorg Land Revenue Regulation 1899 the _ho1dei'--.of 'jarnma bane land continued to hold it in the same i. ' conditionwith the same privileges that existed hitherto before the _co.rning:'iinto force of the Act. The status--quo ante regarding Vi r..p_;'_iv%ileges of jarnrna bane continued to operate after 1964, but ~ ' ;never got enlarged into full ownership. The only exception to this 8 well supported by the RTC extracts produced along with the statement of objections filed by the State. The Karnatal%a;Land Revenue Act does not provide for alienation of is, therefore, difficult to accept the contention of the learne_d. coi1n~se_l it for the petitioners--appellants thatfiithe" «sci1ed;ule:"i<1jar;d's" are paridhana lands and the occupants beingfull ov{fners~.thei'*eof. not liable to pay seigriorage.
7.1) Our conclusion gefs..r_fortifi'eid" the decisioniiiof the Full Bench of this court in Cheekere vs. State of Karnataka, reported in 1.1i;.R iI{Ai§v2959j'\yherein it is held:
(ii)'' p "such._privi1eges'"«enjoyed by the jamma bane "uholder do'inot__e'ntitle him to any sub--soil rights in the .gamma bane land nor had he any interest of right in the standing trees and he could not i' , "utilise Vithese trees for commercial purpose _ -- without payment of full timber value to the 1 i ~Cr'@_vernment. He was also not the owner of the « 7_'vi.._airjco1oumn above the surface of the land.
(iii) .............................. .. [iv] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .." .2)_ To"sirnilar effect is the ratio laid down by this court in THE OF KARNATAKA vs. T.V.RAMARAJU NAIDU AND QTEHERS, HR 1975, KAR 1361 wherein it is held :
" The bane holder has only right to graze cattle, to supply of leaf manure, firewood and tirziber required for the agricultural and d0r'ne_stie'--_ purposes so long as he holds the wetland' '' which the bane land is attached. Ban~e:..holder'*is"'v ~ not treated as having any right to cu'l'tivat:_ion of"
bane lands or to the trees on bane --land's.f' . "
7 .3) Thus, after giving our anxi'ous:_"'consideration' Vthe contentions urged on both sides-and Vtheitpositior:_:o.btain§ing law, We hold that the bane holdervihavs no proprietary right to the soil of bane land and to trees}.st'an_ding.ythereon. Therefore, collection of seigniorage, if sold.' afbane land is the natural right of ; '(}o\#e}'nrne_ntiar1d theivpetitioners cannot take any exception "to~1't._x: '1;
Inllthe' lresulttifwe merit in this appeal and it Is, accordingly:dismissed:1: " l . . . . .
Chief Justice Sd/..
Judge Fr yéé//no