High Court Karnataka High Court

The Deputy Commissioner vs Keerthy S/O Kalingappa on 4 June, 2009

Karnataka High Court
The Deputy Commissioner vs Keerthy S/O Kalingappa on 4 June, 2009
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit
 .r.;>

EN THE HIGH coum OF KARNATAKA AT sAN<;§Ai;G1§_E.j ,

DATED THIS THE 4th DAY 01:' JUNE 26:69' :1 "  

PRESENT;  

THE HON'BLE MR. RB. mNAKAi?.A1S%;  

A:%:_;;j- % _ _
THE HC}N'BLE s}gBEi;§H:j5
wmr A§::{é:;A3,  1$*f3i;;é£)eg
BETWEEN; -  .   "

1 THE GO.i}i«M}:$5§SIQ--¥3E.i§ V' 

I,iAéSA:€f'D1si?4R'iCf:'¢»ff' 
rifissnw  '  

2 THE'-QEWTY §:{)r~:éE£éirAToR OF FOREST
VHASSAVN ms'§#RICI'*"
F,  §-«1AssAN'* .. 

' THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
 R"EP+BY.I'PS SECRETARY
 . EPA._R'I'.Lfv'£ENT 01:' REVENUE
.  M.S.'Bi}ILDING
 v,1,m§A2~iA VEEDHK
BMEGALORE.     .APPELLAN'I'S

VA ~ (By~sn2"BAsAvARAJ KARED§Y, GOVT'. ADVOCATE. 3

-  AND :

 1 KEERTHY
szo KALINGAPPA
R/O MANOORU VELLMEE,



YASALUR HOBLI,
SAKALESHPUR TQ

HASSAN DIS'I'RiC'i'.

REP BY GPA HOLDER
J.V.SUBRAYA   
sm .1 B VASANTBEGOWDA 
AGES 48 YRS,

R/O JAFAVATHE ESTATE 
MUDIGERE, -- "
CHiKMAGALUR TALUK

KALINGAPPA _ ._ _   
S/0 PARAMESH(}()WDAa_  L

R/0 MANOORU wLLAQE;'_' j  

YASALUR H{}_BI..I,;' * -- .;
SAKALESi~l'BL}R TQ 1 "
HASSAN'--..DI:E{l_'RiC{; _  

1:é1§15 BY5r:;PA 'E§4bLijEiR
J..v.su3RA'?v';z_ * 'A

3/0 .1 B vASA.:§?fH§é3<§*NDA
AGEfl_43vYRS, ;  "

V R70 J,%%;PAVA1'Hi"vES';*ATE
F,  M'U.3IGER-E1,' V
 'CIfiIKMAGALO':'€E TALUK

* K'  SHA,NI{AREGOWDA
 .S]v£5"!?U'?§'I33GOWDA
A A  R/oMg\;§ooRu VILLAGE,
 YAS5-HER I-IOBLI,

SAKALESHPUR TQ
HASSAN DISTRICI'.

~  'T ~..REP BY GPA HOLBER
'- ..=..I.v.sUBRAYA

S] O J B VASANTHEGOWDA

AGES) 48 YRS,

R] O JAPAVATHI ESTATE
MUII)iGERE,CHIKMA,GALORE TALUK



C E PRASANNA

3/ 0 EERAPPA

R/O MANOORU VKLLAGE,
YASALUR HOBLI,
SAKALESHPUR TQ
HASSAN DISTRICT.

REP BY GPA HOLBER

VJ.V.SUBRAYA  
5/0 .1 B VASANTHEGOWQA

AGE!) 48 YRS,

R/O JAPAVATHI §:s'rAT1;:_._. f.__ 

MUDIGERE,

CHIKMAGALORE *1'--.§LIJ1%;   ; u

(3 N JAYAP_m_  '

S/O I:%AN:-.j}A~l5§A' »  

R,I.GT.MAN0t:~agU '~.§L1._{AG;§,--,.._VVV_ 

YASALUR .§'IO'E3L},4  .
sAKALEsH?uAR%*:fQ%»_TVT  .. ' -
HASSAN D1ST1€!_(3'F,_  
REP'BY'" GPA HVOLDER

V .J.V.SU=3R AYA- _
"  S/9 J B VASANTHEGOWDA
.    .... ..'

R] 9 JAPAVATHI ESTATE

  '  _M1H3£G§E',f€E,
  %. c:HI':;1%¢1Ag2=ALORE TALUK

 APPASWAMY

S]  SUBBEGOWDA
Rfi} MANOORU WLLAGE,

~   "--.,YASALUR 13053,
= SAKALESI~E1?'UI?'i'Q

rmssan msrmcr.
REP BY GPA HOLSER
J.V.SUBRAYA

S10 3 B VASANTHEGOWDA
AGED 48 'ms,



10

21 ,  é V
- "W./O MANJEGGWDA

5
REP BY GPA HOLDER
.}.V.SUBRAYA
S] O J B VASANTHEGOWDA
AGED 48 YRS,
R] O JAPAVATPII ESTATE
MUDIGERE,
CHIKMAGALORE TALUK

E A YELLEGOWDA
S/O ANNEGOWDA

R/0 MANOORU VILLA(}E,'_
YASALUR 11031.1, "~
SAKALESHPUR TQ

HASSAN DESTRICT.

REP BY GPA HOL-{ERR
J.V.SUBRAYA  ~

31.1.0-V-J, B~-VAS;%NT'HEGGWBA.. 
AGED T43jYRs:i,'  _ .
R10'-JAPAv.é;TH%I.TEs?rA,3"L1%;sA1<ALEsHPUR TQ

-  ,H'AS;s:.AN.,;B':s'rRICr.
' REP BY GPA HOLDER

 J.f_v.'s1;BRAYA

E3/Q J B VASANTHEGOWDA
AER.. -- '
.1;'v.$IJB':2AYA'-«.    1, " 

3/ 0.3 B VASAN'FHE--GOWDA
AGED'--«{48'vYR:3,  ' ~'

; 'mo JA1~*-.wA'mi ES§'A'i'E.
" '~'e.m_J13:GERE;,«  ..... 14 «

' cH:iK;&mGAL0RE TALUK

V 's:ws.;é;I~z.g;;éi~gi2s.§lA
W'W/'{)I'1?'E:'5RABADRAPPA

R/G MANOORU VILLAGE,

 YASALUR Homi,

SA§%;ALESHPUR TQ

"  HASSAN I:21sTR£c'r.
 REP BY GPA HOLDER

V' " J.V.SUBRAYA

S] O J B VASANTHEGOWEA
AGED 48 YRS,

R] O JAPAVATHI ESTATE
MUDEGERE,



JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by §});_c».A»VS_tatefi-ré:Sf’2a§tJgd€i::..tf3 _ ” ~ ‘V

W.P.No.4808/2008 being agggievéa by ..:thé.. ox’~§Ie£”

26.3.2008 wherein the lea.r1:te=’ri_ ‘Sj12g1<§'»Jiidge

the writ petition and remitted me' "11_,1ba1'€tcr mag: fésp£]and€nis~
appellants hercin for filfi:-;'»1_iV:"';3('}}C1'.'m'§i.(1§;f.§'.'Ac!.1t'L'£:T;$_i},'£§f,flC16 applicatien of

the pefitionexs inAacco1danC ¢ Q .

2. The” ;’heVrein:1 _Hfi1¢23 w.p. M14808] 2003
being 1.;_;m,_ éndorszément issued by the
mayofificnis ‘§vhe1’ei3n the application filed

fer pezmiésséonvv _ ° as sought for by the writ

_ p{§tif,i%§IiCIS waér by the impugn-sci order dated

cncicrsement dated 21.9.2907. it is

petition that petitioners am cnfitled to

cut”‘i3.1c 3fI.’h6S;i;h}? seeking permission from the respondents in

:_.”f.31€j.vrit’p.éi:ition and permission ought to have been granteci

fihc appiication for permission to fell the trees has been

rejected by holding that no permission can be

\}

gxantcci to fell the trees situate in _t1:;cp_p1’iv;1’ée’ _th<=:fi " "

trees were not leased in favour of peiifiéfinfiifs'.

3. The learned sing1e”;._.:m§ge ‘hast: a11<5i¥§%§§§i:._:'t21¢? 'amt

petition following the decisiQH1f:LV':A' WP.
No.3932/ 2007 oAn'&–.15?.§.2J.2u0f§v8':(i'»i.Rfiuttcgowda 66
others vs. The Deputy and remitted
the matter f§j:$*Q*::«L f'I"c':5V.-;~".uh "'<;*%)11:%*.ic1.<3rat:ioI1 of the
application ic;-.fV With 3aW« B31113
aégdevfid thtéigtvaxncd Single Judge dated
26.3.20€}8,,V_resp<m§ieu:T1:§% writ petition have preferred

this of 310 tiays in filing the appeal

.. «. _9;3dyv}«–éE3pficafiQn filed for concioning the said delay

:W&' havc heard tht: learned Gavcmment Advocate

. _. H ., ' —- _ :a;9p¢'ari.fi;"g.. fur the appellants.

HA5. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the

T '"Ta"g§pe}.1ants submitted that the delay has been satisfiactorily

expiained and the leamed Single 'Ludge was not justificd in

K?'