Karnataka High Court
Sri D Vinod Shivappa vs The Chief Conservator Of Forest on 25 July, 2024
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29379
WP No. 52337 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 52337 OF 2016 (GM-FOR)
BETWEEN
SRI D VINOD SHIVAPPA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
S/O SRI. SHIVAPPA
R/AT BETTAGERI ESTATE,
SOUNTICOPPA NAD,
SOMWARPET TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT-571236
REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER,
SRI. P. RIYAD,
S/O P.C. ASSAINAR,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
PEE CEE BUILDING,
MADIKERI ROAD,
SIDDAPUR.
KODAGU DISTRICT 571253.
Digitally signed ...PETITIONER
by
NARAYANAPPA
LAKSHMAMMA (BY SMT. LEELA P. DEVADIGA., ADVOCATE FOR
Location: HIGH SRI. ARNAV.A. BAGALWADI., ADVOCATE)
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND
1 THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
KODAGU DISTRICT,
MADIKERI 571201.
2. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,
MADIKERI DIVISION,
MADIKERI TALUK,
KODAGU DISTRICT 571201.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29379
WP No. 52337 of 2016
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI., HCGP A/W
SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL., AAG)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE APPROPRIATE
WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS
DECLARING THAT THE R-1 & 2 ARE NOT ENTITLED TO INVOKE THE
PROVISION OF RULE 153 (i)(a) OF KARNATAKA FOREST MANUAL
AND DEDUCT 10% OF THE SALE PROCEEDS AND THE FACTS AND
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE RESPONDENTS
CONCERNED ARE LIABLE TO BE REFUND THE ENTIRE BALANCE
AMOUNT UNPAID WITHOUT CAUSING ANY DEDUCTION AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING
BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 02.04.2024, THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CAV ORDER
1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
a. Issue appropriate writ or order or direction in the
nature of mandamus declaring that the Respondent
No.1 & 2 are not entitled to invoke the provision of
Rule 153(i)(a) of Karnataka Forest Manual and
deduct 10% of the sale proceeds and the facts and
circumstances of the case and the respondents
concerned are liable to be refund the entire balance
amount unpaid without causing any deduction;
b. Issue appropriate writ or order or direction in the
nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.1
& 2 to cause the refund of the entire unpaid money
towards the sale proceeds of the trees amounting
to Rs. 56,18,500/- without causing any deduction
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:29379
WP No. 52337 of 2016
with interest at the rate of 12% per annum by way
of damages from the date of auction till the
payment of the said amount to secure ends of
justice vide Annexure-D, E & F.
c. Issue such other writ or order or direction that this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the facts and
circumstances of the case including the cost of this
writ petition to secure the ends of justice.
2. The Petitioner claims to be the owner of the Coffee
Estate in Survey Nos. 57/6, 25, 1/1 and 17/2
situated at Anjanageri Bettageri Village,
Somavarpete Taluk, Kodagu District. He claims that
all his lands are 'Paradeena' lands, which are fully
assessed to land revenue and detached from the
Warg, therefore having an independent existence.
On that basis, it is contended that the holders of
such lands are 'Occupants' as defined under the
Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, entitled to enjoy
full benefits of the land and any trees standing
thereon.
3. The Petitioner made an application seeking
permission to cut the trees standing in the Coffee
Estate. The said application came to be rejected by
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:29379
WP No. 52337 of 2016
the respondent which was challenged in WP
Nos.7650/2011 and 8638-20/2011 wherein this
Court directed the respondent to consider the
application of the Petitioner seeking to cut the trees.
Thereafter, the Petitioner made an application to the
Deputy Conservator/Tree Officer who granted such
permission on 22.05.2015. The trees were cut and
transported to the timber depot where a public
auction was held and thereafter amounts deposited
with the respondents. These amounts fall to the
credit of the petitioner. The petitioner made several
requests for payment of the same which was not so
provided. The payment required to be made in
terms of Rule 153 of the Karnataka Forest Manual.
Hence, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for
the aforesaid reliefs.
4. Heard Smt. Leela P. Devadiga, Sri. Vikram Huilgol,
learned Additional Advocate General along with Smt.
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:29379
WP No. 52337 of 2016
Saritha Kulkarni, learned HCGP and perused the
papers.
5. The points that would arise for determination are:
1) Whether subsequent to the amendment to
sub-section (20) of Section 2, whether the
State would have any right, title or interest
in trees grown on Jamma Bane land or bane
land requiring payment of any amounts to
the State?
2) Whether the respondent/State and/or the
Forest Department would be entitled to claim
supervision charges if the State or its
officials were not involved in felling,
dragging, loading, transportation and
unloading of the cut trees to the depot
and/or not having paid the octroi and other
municipal levies?
3) What order?
6. I answer the above raised points as under:-
7. Answer to Point No.1: Whether subsequent to
the amendment to sub-section (20) of Section
2, the State would have any right, title or
interest in the trees grown on Jamma Bane land
or bane land requiring payment of any amounts
to the State?
7.1. Rule 153 of Karnataka Forest Manual is
reproduced hereunder for easy reference:
-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:29379
WP No. 52337 of 2016
"153. Towards the implementation of rules
regarding the disposal of Beete timber received in
the Government Timber Depots from the private
holdings, the following instructions should be
carried out:
(i) The Divisional Forest Officer on receipt of
details of Rosewood logs delivered in the Depot
shall pay 50 per cent of the provisional purchase
price. The provisional purchase price for the
various classifications of Rosewood timber may be
proposed by the Chief Conservator of Forests to
Government for sanction. The balance purchase
price is to be paid to the owner after the
concerned logs are sold in auction and the sale
proceeds are realised, after deducting the
following:
(a) Ten per cent of the sale proceeds towards
supervision charges.
(b) cost of felling, conversion, dragging, loading,
transportation, unloading at the Depots, lotting
and octroi or other municipal levies enroute,
(c) any other incidental cost.
(ii) Government will constitute a Committee to go
in-o the grievances concerning classification of
the tree or timber on the basis of which 50 per
cent of the provisional value is to be paid. The
concerned owner of the tree should remit
together with his application an Earnest Money
Deposit of Rs. 1,000-00. If the appeal is proved
to be baseless this amount would be forfeited to
Government while if it is accepted by the
Committee, after adjusting the expenditure
incurred by the Committee on this specific
enquiry the balance amount will be refunded.
(iii) The Rosewood logs received in the Depots
under these rules should be arranged to be sold
within 3 months from the date of receipt of the
logs in the Depot. The owner of the timber should
be informed of the sale and he will have the right
to offer the final bid.
-7-
NC: 2024:KHC:29379
WP No. 52337 of 2016
(iv) If the price received in the sale is less than
the advance paid to the owner and the
exploitation and supervision charges then the
difference may be recovered from the owner
within one week's time. This condition may be
made known before payment of 50 per cent value
is made. If this is not paid, the dues should be
recovered as arrears of land revenue.
(v) The purchaser of Rosewood in auction sales
should get clearance from the concerned
Divisional Forest Officer as regards its tether
disposal.
(vi) The responsibility over the Rosewood timber
once it is taken over from the grower shall be of
the Government and in case of theft or fire
damage the value as per classification should be
paid to the owner.
(vii) Any owner intending, to retain Beete timber
for his bonafide personal use can be permitted to
retain up to 10 cubic metres by the Chief
Conservator of Forests or any officer authorised
by him. This limit may be relaxed by Government
in individual cases on merits."
7.2. The submission of the Petitioner is that the
trees that were felled by the Petitioner were so
done without any supervision on part of the
Respondents. All expenses were borne by the
Petitioner as well as tax etc., and therefore
there is no ground for the Respondents to
deduct 10% of the sale proceeds as supervising
charges.
-8-
NC: 2024:KHC:29379
WP No. 52337 of 2016
7.3. The denial of the claim, and the valuation made
on the ground that the age of the trees were
older than that of the claim made by the
Petitioner and therefore as on that date, the
land being a Bane land and not Paradeena land,
the said trees belonged to the Government and
not the Petitioner and therefore, the Petitioner
could not claim any interest in the said trees.
7.4. The aspect of ownership of land and the trees
grown thereon has been dealt with in detail in
WP No.55534/2013 and other connected
matters. Subsequent to the amendment to
sub-section (20) of Section 2 of the Karnataka
Land Revenue Act, it is the holder of the said
Bane land or Jamma Bane land who would
become an occupant with full ownership rights.
7.5. In the present case, the permission having been
granted on 22.05.2015, the trees having been
cut thereafter and transported to the Timber
-9-
NC: 2024:KHC:29379
WP No. 52337 of 2016
Depot, and an auction having been held on
29/30.11.2015 which is subsequent to the
amendment to sub-section (20) of Section 2 of
the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. The said
amendment having come into force on
01.02.2013, every holder of the land is an
occupant of the said land having full ownership.
7.6. Thus, in that view of the matter, whether the
age of the trees was 34 years, greater or lesser
than 34 years, is of no relevance. Since from
the date on which the amendment came into
force, the holder of the land is a full owner and
the State would not have any right, title or
interest in either the land or the trees grown on
the said land. Albeit, if any permission is
required to cut any particular/protected variety
of trees, the owner would have to secure such
requisite permission. That apart, there is no
other manner of right, title or interest that the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29379
WP No. 52337 of 2016
Government can claim as regards the said land
or the trees grown on the said land.
7.7. I answer point no.1 by holding that subsequent
to the amendment to sub-section (20) of
Section 2 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act,
the holder of the land would become a full
occupant. The State would not have any right,
title or interest in the land or the trees and
therefore cannot claim any amount on the trees
felled in the said land.
8. Answer to Point No.2: Whether the
respondent/State and/or the Forest Department
would be entitled to claim supervision charges if
the State or its officials were not involved in
felling, dragging, loading, transportation and
unloading of the cut trees to the depot and/or not
having paid the octroi and other municipal levies?
8.1. Insofar as the deduction of 10% towards
supervision is concerned, the supervision
charges only relate to the cost of felling,
dragging, loading, transportation, unloading,
octroi and other municipal levies.
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29379
WP No. 52337 of 2016
8.2. In the present case, admittedly, there has been
no supervision exercised by the Respondents.
The Respondents have not felled, dragged ,
loaded or transported the trees to the depots
nor have they paid any octroi or other
municipal levies enroute.
8.3. The claim for the said 10% in terms of clause
(a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 153 can only be
made if any of the above acts have been done
by the authorities. Without doing so, no such
claim or deduction could be levied by the
Respondents' officials.
8.4. Hence, I answer Point No.2 by holding that no
supervision charges would be required to be
paid if the State or its officers have not felled, ,
dragged, loaded, transported and unloaded the
trees to the depots. Insofar as octroi and other
municipal levies enroute are concerned, in the
event of such payment being made by the
State or its authorities on account of the owner
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29379
WP No. 52337 of 2016
of the land not having made such payment.
Such amounts can be deducted at actuals or in
the event of the land owner having made such
payment, no such deduction could be made on
this amount also.
9. Answer to Point No.3: What order
9.1. In view of my findings in regards to Points No.1
and 2 above, I am of the considered opinion
that this petition is required to be allowed and
appropriate directions are required to be
issued. This being so for the reason that the
amounts which have been collected by the
State on account of the auction, have remained
with the State nearly for the last 9 years and
the Petitioner has been deprived of the usage of
such monies for that many years. Hence, I
pass the following:
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC:29379
WP No. 52337 of 2016
ORDER
i) The Writ Petition is Allowed.
ii) It is declared that Respondents No.1 and 2are not entitled to invoke the provision of Rule 153(1)(a) of the Karnataka Forest Manual for the purpose of deduction of 10% of sale proceeds in the auction insofar as the present auction is concerned.
iii) A mandamus is issued directing Respondents No.1 and 2 to make payment of the entire amount received at the auction amounting to Rs.56,18,500/- along with interest @ 12% Per Annum considering that the Petitioner has been deprived of usage of the said amounts. The payment to be made within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE PRS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3