IN THE HIGH comm or KARNATAKA AT 3ANGAI,éR§'%:«T DATEG THIS me 27*" DAY OF A_L!GU_ST, 250fis-- fT; 4 swans % A M _ % THE HOMBLE MR. JUSTICE ASHQK js";A%::§Ii*«ar;r:1:;féH:: A
WRIT PETITION No.18S?8 éfiéeog {GM-R;Esj:
BETWEEN _
V s susau – V
5/0 LATE SEETHARAMAI. es %
AGED as YEARS
we fiASAVAVALLY v:L.LAr:~;;:-: . %
I-(ANATHI pros? A
CHIKMAGALUR TALUK
REP. av HIS 9A~Hes,pE.a * «
SRI.RANGANA:_TH
PETITIONER
“(5_y”Sri Sa:{dé,-ep ‘Eaii¥, Advocate for
‘M15. Ashek» Haranahalli Associates, Advaczatar.)
AhI3~ a %%%%%
1 DE§UTY%<:6ivéMiSsIomER
'i1".HIKMAGAi;,1}R SISTRICT
CHIKHAGALLE2
V'._2 3 DEPUEY' CQMQSERVATOR or FGRESTS
H M' " ' »cH1T;<.re_:AGAmR
"CHIKMA€5A'LLlR DIVISION
W .. RESPGNQENTS
(By Smt Sargjfini Muthanna, GA)
' THIS WP FILED PRAYING T0 QUASH THE GOVERNMENT ORDER
"DT."?.9.20C6 GPRGDUCED VIBE ANNA); DIRECT THE RESPGNDENTS
Ti) PERMIT THE PETITIOHER TO CUT 8: REMOVE ALL THE TREES
STANDING ON THE SCHEDULE LAHD WITHOUT PAYING ANY
ADGIYIONAL MALKI VALUE; AND ETC.
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court made-.the
following: ‘
Q..B.D.E.B
The petitioner has questioneddghe
Government Order dated yth septemfifilr
He has also seught a writ of mand_an3.us lie. the rei$tilejl2ideVhtls to
permit him to cut the treee stanVdi:i*lg:__e.l;_ the ~– land
without paying any additlenel”rhar,ket l;if»3?l’\i.i”e§l’,”
2. The brief facts pf theceeeVe{e,__t’héltv«:t’ij.e’. schedule land
was grantedihy ‘the’5E2§ate4.Ge-Sfelttjment to the petiticsner on 19″‘
Nevember, 19845.” .He’V..hae”;§_éid:V”‘l’%;é.29,397/– towards the mall-cl
value of the *trees4ust-ah_’d’ihg ‘en the schedule lands. on receiving
th:eV.arl’lal4l:’reement/erder was challenged by the petitiener by filing
lvrit petition l\lo.,1€1056 of 2001. This Court by its erder, dated
£334.
5
jzxstified in holding that the existence ef 93 trees is
ascertained after the refixation ef the beundaries.
(e) He has aiso relied upon the judgment of the _
case of N.K.BASl-IEER AHA§eE’n’i%’~ :.,,_
KARNATAKA & ANOTHER,bireporter.t’in 19s:e;_2) i<ai§;L.j'tett%
260 for contending that the"'"cfai*:tee ef~.Va"'n§ehd.'1'ipeeemes
nwner of trees standingxgn the"'gVrent:ec3..i.and.'Hthiex has atso
reiied upon an unreportedtcietfiivsinn,.«~~dt'§i:9§;_Q.?.1996 passed
in Writ pe::::¢tii other connected
petitinns. Paregtaph ~'<:rde;' reads as foiiews:
_ "gigs; when the..;§et§£i§:ner seek permission to
. °c':u£f V'and*7f"enéaye treeé, the faflowing courses
§!'ItT: : 'ep{e=n;'i tb ijbe Deputy Conservator cf
Farests:—i ' 1 it
tea) to grant permission to cut and remove the
it " ., " trees; H
__"~t3'¥;a)AVgto refuse permission if he comes to the
' "tccmclusinn that the applicant has 119 rfght to
the tree gmwth of that the trees be-Ieng to
the government;
fifiii.
c) to permit the holders of the Land
the right to such trees (except saedameeef}
upon a valuation of their iprfeseet’ .. vaIue’ f
based on prevaiiiege _market”‘-rates, the
trees are reserved ‘trees, belceginfi
Government. V »_ _V
4. Per centre, Sm2;’_A..4_’_:€?a_rei§n:V:_»V:MutLt$Aer:eja, the teamed
Additiona! Gevemmente Advegate. fie responeents
submits that the __:;§a;§.§3§”V.§i1:”respect cf 93 trees
standing on the number of trees is
ascertained aenly ‘ fesurvey and refixing the
beundariesw Sheeelee eb¥’_I’!a’!2§fi’f5Ei notice one ef the conditions
sebject te4.3§9§ji:eh the made vide Government Order,
dt}’1Q&’1i=é.eVve;§1h.e:e: «4934 (Annexure-R3). The said condition
statee7’cIr;e!:Vthe:’A’f¢reet”‘§epartment cfficiels wculd disease of the
Vjreee stef{d¥§1gv:AVeh”.V’the schedule lane. She also brings to my
t%1Ve..¢_;sndertak§ng given en beheif of the eetificrner that at
‘efjdieposei, the differentiai maiki value, §f any, shall be
to the Ferest Department (A:mexure~R5 te the
“”e\.4″”et’a.”t:ement ef objections). She submits that the petitioner is not
83%
justified in cieiming the right over the tress
consideration is paid by the eetiticner.
‘5. The submissions of the ieerned totmsel heis<e.v"rfeceiv.etiV"g
my enxiees censideratien.
6. The decisieris on eaeeai by the
petitiener’ side, can beat’ no imzeived in
this case is resurveyiirrgiii” refixation ef the
beurieeries, In eught to have
waited till fLi£i–Ab»ci~i:-iirirrerceitien ef the boundaries and
thereafter <:onsicie:red_'th~e request for the grant of the
schedule In the ease, the grant is first made and
thereeAftervi"theF're::iirvey and the refixatioh ef the boundaries have
tei<eri"';.n_!Ta€':e.JA vivzfetixation ef the beundaries it is found that
vV'.:-Jithere ere"i~35v–.trees, the petitioner grantee becomes iiebie to pay
for all the 135 trees. If he has said the maiki
wry fer 42 trees, he is iiabie to pay the meiki value fer the
A I s ree:iaini*ng 93 trees.
V U ?,’But the aiiied question which cerinet be ignored :5,
whether these 93 trees are grown after the grant of the iand in
1989!.
1984? Neither the eetitionefls side nor the respeeden§ef’:.e:’Sid’e’_”A”
have predated any expert’s certificate shewéng ‘A V’
trees in questien. It is eiso quite poeslbie’ net
of the 93 trees may heve been greim§”%.1y the petit§e’f’ge§§.,.:a7f’ter’:the ” V
grant came te be made. In vthe lmpe-eeee ‘e-r§er’eEse..th»-ere is no
rnenfion of the particuiere ef v%_ese.jthe age ef the
trees. Leeai prox{!e§en_s made by the
pet:itiener’s side ya/e:é;3_!.d fie oniy if there
were no reeur~;ey__ehe1 b*ev:s.e~:§er!es. what cennet be
hast sight of}; fifinpesed In the Gevemment
Order,” dt.19″‘A ” (Aenexure«R3) and the
u;1¢.c.*..eflrvtekiv;::«:_§;’:¢v:::i_f§.r”e13v of} :of the petitioner’s side (Annexure
RS ‘ ‘tr; –»etetemeet”‘ef_ obj ections).
circumstances, the impugned order is
—-4.J.:;;g,j;ee’i.:$ as fa”r.__e–s the reependersts’ competence te demand the
differentlai meik! value in princmie is concerned.
. ‘FIe*eiege:* fer an esklne, they are net entitied to demand the
‘ejev.:1A”g3e§,§r:1ent of meiki value fer 93 trees even without femlshing the
siarticeiars.
£83-L
9. In the result, I anew this petition in part
resperzdents’ cempetence in principle tov-:J’emaAnd–‘_”thé. 0}?
differential maiki value but quash the der11Var§.{i_Trr§aflie i r§
93 trees. Further I direct the respénéents rd holdjzhg é–éjtr’u’ir§r by ” V
affording adequate opportunvétsgg tc_thz.sV:..r:§etIt2e_r:er iziavvptztvvfiforth his
case regarding the ace cf thé’ if it is found
that any cf 93 treevs_§rsa_ after
1934, the petitierg.ar§”is__ p_a%g:%tt;eg«r§§a!;g: valrse. If :1; is
found that 1934,. the petitioner is
abfiged to pa:??’th«er’ same:
:0, _:~;_g m§:e:r%as
Sd/-
Judge
A ‘ _ :rmgr;g~.r;r