Karnataka High Court
Smt Manohari vs Deputy Commissioner on 25 March, 2008
Author: Anand Byrareddy
Bench: Anand Byrareddy
SUUR UF RAKNAIARS HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR DATED THIS THE 25" DAY OF MARCH 2698 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY "Wie Late Sommaheker, aged about 70 years, 2. Sti. Ts. Jayadev, 7 Ss S/o Late Somasheker, _ Aged chout 59 yoard, -- 3 Sti. 'T.8, Nandeesh, _ So Late Somashekar, io aged about 48 yars, ~All ave residents of Kenodi Village, _ Yesaluru Hobti, i Sakleshpura Taluk, Hassan District. Represented by their G.P_A. Holder Sri. H.N. Devaraju, Wo Late Nanje Gowda, Aged abut 47 years, Timber Merchant, 3S ery CIT NAR? wf SRIREIMIMIM FHS CUURI UF RARIVAIARA HIGH COUR! OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR Jai Maruthi Timbers, Mallikarjuna Nagara, Sakieshpura Town, La Hassan District. ce Petitioners ; (By Smt. K. Nagaveni, for Ashok Baranahall i Aasocinen - Advocates) | ee AND: 1, Deputy Commissioner, ~ Hassan District. | Hassan. . Deputy ' Conservator of fRoret, Hassan District, mo Hassan. ° State of Kamataka Department of Revenue, M.5. Buildings, _. Bangalore -- 360 001. - Represented by ita ; -- Seuretary. ... Respondents | Gh R Kumar, High Court Government Pleader) ee This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the communication dated 26.05.2007 vide Annexure-A issued by the R1 insofar as the petitioner are concemed. This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in "B* Group on this day, the Court made the following: - G ORDER
The petitioners are questioning an endorsement --_ issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Hassan District in ; an reapect of the application of the petitioners 'eecking ee permission to cut and remove tres existing on the lands in -- 26 4 fie ie ND. ae 4 Kesode Vege Surv ak neh Jatuk, Lawman Digs vs ;
@Qidront 03 per Cot pedor db. WS.8 aos). uN pp Henible Abr 2 It transpires: that the second respondent has obtained an opinion ftom the frst respondent on the basis of which, the impugned encomersent is issued. The petitioners claim that they are tthutedars of the land in question and onnene of the ees situate on the land. Since the standing trees hiner the growth of coffe plants, it was felt neceanary te to out arid remove the trees. It is contended that the 'trees 'in question are not reserved by the a -- . 'Covemment, in 1 that, the grant of lands as hiduvali lands
- was after receiving the price thereof in terms of Section 60 "20 LOS HOI WiWivNAYN 40 not HOI ViVAVNEWA dO LINGD HOIH WiVAWNUYN a0 GunOn » WOM WOWLWAWOY ZO Lenco HOIH Weivay Tuer Sunt Ur RARIVAIARA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR sre Rees Wk of the Karnataka Land Revenus Code, 1888 which included the value of the trees, except sandal-wood trees.
3. It ia further contended that in Seek of the Kamataka Land Reverse Act, 1964, the right of the State Government in respect of the trees in any land shall be desmed to have bean conceded to the occupant except trees reserved by the Government. ti is the contention of the petitions that the trees j in question are not reserved by the Goverment, 'There i is no record available in this regard. 'The opinion furnished by the first respondent on
-- : the basis of which the impugned endorsement is issued, is N ; "without fhundation, That in terms of Section 91 of the | | Kamataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the price for the un- NL | occupied lands which are granted by the Government "includes the value of the trees, This ia also evident from the tenor of Rule 128 of the Forest Rules, 1969 which defines "Government trees " as including all trees on landa belonging to private persons, the right of which has been on
-~OURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT CF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT reserved under the provisions of the Kamateka Land Reverme Act, 1964. oh, 4, The Counsel for the petitioners wold abet that the question raised in the present petition is settled and fully covered by a decision of this Court in W.P.NO.43009/1995... dated 19.7.1996 and connected matters in the case of ML Krishnegowda and another vs. Deputy Commissioner, Chiles gadur District and another, wherein onder sini circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner had opined thatthe petiionerstherin have
- - no right over treea other than jungle wood kind of trees, on the footing that there was no proof of payment of malki sas in that background, the Deputy Conservator of Forests had demanded the value of trees in regard to which ~ felling permission was sought. After examining the provisions of the Kamataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, Forest Act, 1963 and Forest Rules, 1969 and the earlier decisions of this Court, it was opined in the above decision E that unless the Government is able to show reservation of right to trees either generally or specifically, the right to Soran deme ang cme oe it been made either with reference to the gencenl notification or with reference to any expres onde: or the terms ofthe grant or entries in the evens resords, _ While quashing the endorsements ieeued, tie Deputy Commissioner concemed Was dircted to reoonsider the reiter and give his opinion to the T Tree Ofiiser in 'zeconiance with law and unless the Depety Conmmissionsr nds that there is reservation of any toes in favour of the Government, at the time of prant, he
-- _ would be 'obliged to give an opinion that the title to the * trees vest in the owner or the occupant of the land and further that the Tree Officer shall consider the applications oo : - : for grant of felling permission filed by the petitioners by holding such enquiry, as he deems fit and that he is at liberty to obtain an opinion from the Survey Department or the Reverme Department or a revenue opinion from the S "res emery Sat MARINAS PIRGTY SOEIKE Ut KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH court OF KARNATAKA HIGH C Deputy Commissioner or his delegate, for arriving at a decision on the application of the petitioners. rr was aiso laid down that if there is any day in pang the onde by open for the petitioners . to sock permission io oui and transport them, pending disponal by the Tree Officer, by depositing the value of the troos as 'may be determined by the concemed Deputy Canservatr of Forests or the Tree Officer and such depot shal be subject to the final onder of the T Tree Officer or the Deputy Conservator of Forests and ultimately, {the mtr was tobe desided in vou of the petitioners by 'granting permission, the amount i _ Gepost would be refined 5 "This decision has been followed by a recent decision in W.P.No.3932/2007 dated 15.2.2008 in the case : | of MR Puttegowda and Others vs. Deputy Comunissioner, Hassan District and others. This Court, after referring to certain other decisions which have been relied upon by the Ss Cc "wer SUURS UF RAKNAIAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH State, has held that as the impugned onder did not indicate amy reasons for rejection of the application of the petitioners, seeking felling permission, kas set t aide the
6. The case on hand is emt nt by Ss decision of this Court in Krishne Gowda' 8 Cage. Hence, the petition is allowed. Amenure-A is quashed. The matter is remanded to the second respondent to obtain a fresh opinion from the first respondent and unless the first responent Side that thers ia reservation of any tees in favour" of the Govemment, either by any general a notification or by an express order or by a specific reservation at at the time of grant, he would be obliged to io en tat tt vin ome NS . occupant of the land.
?, The second respondent shall consider the application for grant of felling permission holding such ES GUUKT UF RAKNAIARA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COUR enquiry, as he deems fit and may obtain opinion. from the Survey department or the Deputy Conamissione: or bis delegate for taking any decision onthe application, -- |
8. The respondent sul comply with 'this onder Within a period of four month fiom the date of receipt of copy of this order. "TE there is any delay in passing. such orders, or if the wees are aimeady cut, iti open to the petitioners to seek pemiiscion W cut or to transport them pending disponal ty the 'Tree Officer, by depositing the value ofthe toes as may be detemined by the Tree Officer hs : ot the Deguty Conservator of Forests and such "deposit shal! be subject to the final onder of the Tree Officer of the Deputy Conservator of Forests. ny Sd/-
Judge