Karnataka High Court
Suryanarayana Rao M V vs Deputy Commissioner on 30 June, 2011
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar
#1.
IN THE HIGH COURT 0:: KARNATAKA AT E,1s'xT:G";(:Ts,(§!§E«.A
DATED THIS THE 30*" DAv:0"E'J1:s~;_E'..2o,11f V
BEFORE : _ ._ _ V ~
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MORAN SHANTAN'AG{)_'UDAR
wan PETITION N9. 11o3'*vQEi 2010 '( GM-EF'=Z)R"fi
Betwgven : .
M.V. Suryanarayana Rao _ ._
S/0 late M.S. Venkatagiriappa; '
Age 70 years . '
R/o Arasaiu Viiiage'«.é_
Hosanagara Tai_uk
Shimoga District t '
Rep by GPA Hoideir '
Ganesh E' _
S/0 Naga'p_pa__ . V
Aged 37 years
Ayanurpete -- ,_
Shimoga District. ' _ ..Petitioner
(By ES:ub_TamEihya...feir M/s. A.H. Law Firms, Advs.,)
T
1. Détpiiitj/' €3_o_vmrr:TiéEioner
Sh.imgaV.DiS'c,rict, Shimoga.
V 2. Deputy'-.C0n"servator of Forest
Shimog_E1'1~ Division, Shimoga.
3;" Ass"t:_. Commissioner
'Sagar Sub-Division
Shimoga.
4." Thasildar
Hosanagara Taluk
Shimoga District.
5. Tree Authority
Shimoga District
Shimoga
Rep by its Chairman.
6. State of Karnataka
Department of Revenue
M.S. Building
Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi
Bangalore--560 001. . . _
Rep by its Principal Secr'e'tary';s.__? ,..Respondents
(By Sri R. oevadas,j/:xsA.,§;'
This_W.r,i_t"'Pe"tit'i~i3::ny._is._'fil.ed Ru-n.cl.er5 Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India praying to quash the order passed
by the 5th--Resp0ndent._--" Tree "Authority in Appeal No.1/2008-
09 dated 13.11.2009'(P'i*od'u.cecl'as Annexure-A).
This Writ"'Petitiwo'n coming on for preliminary hearing in
group this day,"the____Co.urt made the following :
ORDER
'--Thex'orderA':=yide Annexure--'A' passed by the Tree V"',___4+"x.uthor'i't3{ 13.11.2009 by which the petitioner is v:__dVifrecte'd_.to deposit the market value of the timber to get 0' timber released, is called in question in this writ
-3"
petition. By the very order, the Tree directed that the timber from rose myvood _.treejsi'_'vsh'all'*.be.i " it confiscated to the Government.
2. The records reveal v.pelt.iV.ti_on'erV;s§vliather viz., M.S.Venkatagiriyappa.. granted the land bearing village to an extent of words, the said the said property for upsetitpricei the certificate of grant of Saguvali chit._yi'd.exAn'riVeXd:f.e§'B' dated 10.5.1972. The v...saguvali,chii't conta'i~ns____l_:_he following clause:
' .1." : Provided also that this title nAd.eed"shia.ll'A';.not be considered in any way to Qi"'----ant.':' or vest in the said by l$fl.S..'<./enkatagiriyappa s/o Soorappa, his V.h_eiy.rs, personal representatives or assign the rights to Sandal trees which are hereby H reserved to the State Government except in so far as the rules that are or may be \/"i -4- framed in the matter of__.the_ g_ra'nt*'::'_'or""V boundaries for such trees may permivitffhi Subsequently, on 30.5.1973 the"p_etitio»nver"s has paid a sum of 374.58 aeceuiritjofVV'V"fu'iVi"'s'aie amount + sales tax etc.,~ towa'rd's:s;aie"-»of woodrrinvivisurvey No.31 of Basavapura Thus, it is clear that the::p.etiti§_3n'er':s purchased the aforemen.t~i'onyed:@'..i*anvd_l3Li.t iipiurohased the trees standing t'i~.e:" " .'..:iVhe§'reafter, he filed an application bfeiiiing permission. The Tahsiidar and the Assistant"Comm"i"seioner as well as the Deputy Commissioner iasper their orders at /-\nnexure--'G', ' H' 7_ano'.V'V'J".respectively"recommended for grant of felling per~rm.i_ssi'on'=._inVj*~fa~~vour of the petitioner on certain conditS.ons_.~;'e_iva..ting to rose wood trees. It is specifically ~--7.j'j;j«.m'entionedV__that rose wood trees can be cut and removed State Government may pay bonus in favour of .___'tt'ieVpetitioner to the prescribed extent. Accordingiy, the W _5_ Assistant Conservator of Forests, Shimoga his order dated 30"' of June pe'r'rni:t'ted': it petitioner to feii the trees as';
Thereafter, the Tree Officer, Sh.,i;m.QgaA'Di.visi.on.:pa,s's'eVd"an " it order as per Annexure--fitjxdated*VV,?,8--.3;-,2QO7A'directing the petitioner to remit an towards value of trees in Village of Hosnagara V"i'§{o';'31 of Basavapura village). in question by the petitioner 'Abefore th_eA;CTre:e_.~..,¢/:i:,'uthority, Shimoga. The Tree Authority" '4iVt5vV,Order"' vide Annexure--'M' dated 20"' perrnitted the petitioner to cut and rerfioveii the teakwood without paying malki V(.mark'e't) vaiuéi. However, the Tree Authority concluded the.' petitioner should pay market value in respect of and jungle wood. The said order was caiied question before this Court in Writ Petition No.1S18S/2008 (GM~FOR) by th'eJ/petitioner. This Court . 5 -6- confirmed the order passed by the Tree Authority"iih"--«.sO,_4 far as it relates to teakwood is concerned. this Court set aside the order passed;by«:'it_h:e'~V:T--rees:"
Authority in respect of rosewood T remitted the matter to the.*T..r.ee iAuthority"v'%'fresh consideration. While remittinvRg=.V't'rieV Court observed thus : "
" After 4;:'areful*"'1 order authority, it is of} the said order that H the if authority has rightly al/oi2v_ed.'_the erred in directing the petitiorier toitpay'i'._ti2e}n7arket value in so far . 'beete jungle wood trees on the th_at petitioner has failed to pay the the time of grant. The said by the appellate authrfrity is _ contraryx for the reason that the jurisdictional V " irevehue authority has certified, Vdretrommended and forwarded his opinion stating that petitioner has not violated any terms and conditions of grant and that may be granted the permission for fell;ing_'xv'.'._"__:
trees. The said aspect has been ll accepted and confirmed by'"'the. '_a*ppellat'ef authority. But, so far as direction issued by the appellate-v.authority<.j.to, collect the mal/<i in respectxof the and other kind of trees:)'sc_ in myvyievv the said authority has error in observing _that_ pay the market and other payment of maiflketv '_yaJ'iue( y be granted for telling vtheground that petitioner has noxtvpaidithefnallki in respect of beete and other kinda of trees. Therefore, so far as direction issued by the appellate : V«a:iti7ority' fisiconcerned, the same cannot be 'tor the reason that, except stating thathfor all other trees including beete the 'age much beyond 45 years and would have qualified as trees only at the time of grant during 1973 and that these trees have not been assessed and ma/l<i not paid. F"?
I V, The sale consideration was ?1',0.8O/~V.W_On he purchased the wood standVl'ii'imt;' in No.31 of Basavapura village by and sales tax etc., as is The saguvali chit vide':$§h«ne${_ure'--§'f"iB'.cl'learl.l{V:V.freveals that the sandal wood =i'trene's:'"s't'a..n:di'n'gu_"i~n._ land are reserved to the State Gov.ernr*nent. -.E><.ceot the sandal wood trees no other vltreees'were;:_reser*ved 't--o....the State Government at the time of btlieT'p..roperties to the petitioner's father. Ilnxtthisl is relevant to note the judgment of th'i»s_"Court in the case of N.K.BASHEER ,vj"AHAMiEb ,_--_v=-.=.-2 srzm-:w'oF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER ( .1*.9_'89j'('2,)"!{af;L;7;'..260) wherein a similar question arose for consideArav't'io.n. While deciding the said matter, this ;~.SPui{"atrE%?5l3§tEa8%"%J8l?£%ll8"A%?"atla°d' zaauaeaesiw at lA__g~:§'ante'e~«.of a land becomes an occupant in relation to the ____'tlr'ee's standing on such land. Therefore, unless the trees X?/"f;
wiii
-- 10- g _ "-ttus have been specially reserved, the price for suc.hria'n'?jL*--.. _ inciude price of such trees. Wh_iJl,e_sum_--z*i1'irig:'_jurj; Court heid thus :
" To sum up, the positio'iir«t.is.this he had been granted to Channat_bas-aye gjowda}:
He acquired his rights to the trees in View ofi.-:':§ection Act inasmuch than sandalW'ood°_,trees 'reserved as provided " «of * ' ":Therefore, the petitioner' rights from the said Ci2a_nnabas'ai/e in relation to the treesasll "been done in the case of A 5?A:SHEERAA& co." In the circumstances, I 'endorsements issued by the at Annexures C and G and
d)'rectJ the refund of seigniorage value .. tr:ol/ec:'ted pursuant to Annexure-C from the V."x--..V"petitioner, within a period of three months from today. Writ Petition allowed and rule made absolute. " /7 ,}1..
From the above, it is clear that unless.2'p'at*t,i.Cularr_:__'_ type of trees are reserved by the State G§Jye'mTr_ne'nt,*_all:i '"~ 2 trees standing on the property}so_'l'da~'; Government in favour of a pa_rtVi.cular" person_ with * ' the said purchaser.
4. In the.w.matte~s-V-»:'OZn vt;:he"""case of the petitioner is inasmuch as, the petitiv,o.ner"A"l1as;:*n§>t" the land, but also purchasedethele over the land in question by payinglwllthevv amount as is clear from Even*as.suming that the petitioner has not purchasing the trees standing over the"p,roperty':jin; question, the petitioner would become Agoccupant in relation to the trees standing on such per the dictum laid down by this Court in the lrfaforementioned judgment. Sub-section (3) of Section 3 u it 75 of the Act states that, when permission to occupy the land has been granted, the said permission shall be -10- .2.
deemed to include concession of the State'Goy'»er'n:n':eritu it to all trees growing on that land.:Awh_i_c'hj;. marry, been or which shall not thereafter be,_e><presslTy.lreseryed at the time of granting such p'errnission'.._V_ 'I*n:.V-the matter on hand, sandal wood trees wer'e"rese'i*x{ed atthé time of issuing saguvali chit in faxrolur In view of the above, thei:,sa_nda'lVV' Vw'i.ll°not vest with the petitionezr." ""vE_xie.e.i:}t"the:_l's.an~.da.lv_vwood trees, all other trees will_yes_t"'with1.:;t_he the petitioner. In view of order is liable to be quashed. 'A'ccord'irig:I'y,1'thiefolllowing order is made :
'Th'ei..."torder vHide""'Annexure--'A' dated 13.11.2009 passeldri_by;"t:hve,:'5%" respondent-Tree Authority, stands quashed. betition is allowed accordingly. safe Efiaéé 1 fébk/nk