W.P.No.4671/2006.:iG:fl--.-»_F€)RI IN THE mun coum' or KARNATAKA AT = DATED mxs THE 31-: DAYDF MAY H L f A BEFORE THE HON'BLE Dr. JUS'PICE.I%§;-w.BHAi'€THAV_A.fi3;8$.LK' wan' mrmou no.4671fg.;);9_§1§3M§Fc:§a1A BETWEEN: % " V' Attur Ncllur gf" - V _V if': V Kodagubist. 3 * ....PE'rmoNER AND: " % _____ 2. Forest, Mad-ikeri % ...RESPONDENTS
§§:i,1:1.M.Manjuna;h, HCGA)
” Writ Petition is flied under Arno’ be 225 and 227 ofthc
.Oons1:1tut1on of India. praying to quash the hnpugncd order
dt.2S.2.2006 produced at Ann-C as inoperative and void and etc.
W. P.No.467 1 I 2006 (CSM-fF’OI2)
required for cutting the trees gmwn in the coffee estate.
Law. It is the case ofthe petitioner that it has
apply for cutting permission before the
of abundant caution. Therefoxe, the –.
pe1’m1’smon’ for roxhhg the hoes stand’ the t
It is the ease of the is
redeemed had and the trees ‘ as she is
the owner of the Annexurea
‘A- 1’ to ‘A-4f’; lands in question. It is
the case of an application before the
Respondent pmvnions of the Karnataka
F\ct,….I’976. The Respondent No.2. in mm,
the Deputy Commissioner] Respondent No.2,
seeking information with regard to the
_ respect of the tees stand1ng’ in the petitionefa
‘A It is averred in the writ petition that the 1″
tehhohhcnt uoaom usly has issued the impugned endorsement
f V M % c1§te¢i”25.02.2006 stating that the petitioner has not fumiahed the
documents and thmrom, no information on the right of
trees can be given.
w.P.Ne.4571/zooejsexfiéggy
It is the cage of the petitioner’ that the 1*’
access to all the xeoonis and given the V’
Iwns to be xeoonied in writing to the
per the RTC entries, the lands in 1 I and” ‘
it is not open to the 1″
endorsement which is not of law on the
ground of violation of pzinciples’ ” ‘
3. The leaw f has cited the
decision 1%, &&&& is-*93{g§} (CHEKERE POOVAIAH
v/e.s’m’rE) 19i%9:2)e 233 (E.G.WHl’I’E v/s.S’l’ATE3.
4. ‘I’.§.e’vre:spei1de;_1ts”hzewe eet filed statement ofobjecflons.
Slit <'f;e$e.ofthe petitioner that except RFC pmduced at
petitioner has no other document, but the
v"_Responde4fit.. eeekye. 1"; Deputy Commissicner has got an the
**rat§. Ikimitmdly, the Respondent No.1 has not men' an
of hearing the DcfitJaoner' befim: mm' 1; the impugned
_ ll1CIit~ Thus. on the some of violation of pr.v.nc1' 'plea of
justice, the impugned endorsement is liable In be quashed.
W.P.No.46?1/2G0§..{G¥4;E0R)
6. In the ficts and circumstances, it would 4′
justicc to quash the impumod order ‘
Respondent No.1 with a dimction to ‘o:gfi’c1fntl.:79f
hearing the petitioner and pass of L’
tho pc1:1uon’ ° er that she should be dr;<§la:ud go (_% % own: hamd
in qucstion, cannot be «Respondent No.1 to
decide the issue. T A L' 'V
7- In the anowed and the
impugmd 26.02.2006 bearing
No.Vana; orkospondoont No.1 is qumhcd
and the the Respondent No.1 to dead
of pctiuonor and dispose of tho same,
No 00313.
Advooak: is manna! thmc weeks tune” to fiic
— of S d /3
kooo1ooo+