IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 0"!" DAY OF OCTOBER 2009 PRESENT THE I-IOIWBLE MR. P.D. DINAKARAN, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE I-ION'BLE MRJUSTICE MOHAN SI-IANTANAGOUDAR WRIT APPEAL NO. 1626 of 2009(GM~FOR) BETWEEN: 1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HASSAN DISTRICT, HAS SAN. 2 THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN. 3 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPT D. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BANGALORE 1. BANGALORE APPELLANT S (By Sri BASAVARAJ KARREDDY, GOVT. ADVOCATE) AND : VATEHALH ESTATE BY ITS CHARIMAN, ZIAULLA SHERIFF A/A 64 YEARS, S /O LATE ABDUL GAFFAR SHERIFF R/O HOSUR ESTATES LIMITED, SAKALESHPUR TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT, REP. BY THE GPA HOLDER A.C. RAMACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, S /O SRI NARAYAN, REF. OF M/S. KENARA WOOD 85 PLYWOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., R/O SAKLESHPUR, HASSAN DISTRICT. RESPONDENT
{By Sri LSUBRAMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR M /8. AH LAW FIRM
FOR RESPDT)
WRIT APPEAL FILED U/ S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN
THE WRIT PETITION NO.3902/2008 DATED 24/O3/2008; AND
ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING UP FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:–
J U D G M E N ‘1’
(Deiivered by P.D.Dinakarar1, C.J.)
This appeal is filed by the State–respondentS in
W.P.NO.3902 / 2008 being aggrieved by the Order dated 24.03.2009
wherein the learned Single Judge has aiiowed the Writ petition
and remitted the matter to the reSporIdentS–appe11antS herein for
fresh consideration of the application of the petitioners in
accordance with law.
2. The respondents herein filed W.P.No.3902/2008 being
aggrieved by the endorsement issued by the respondents in the
writ petition wherein the application filed for permission to fell
trees as sought for by the writ petitioners was rejected by the
impugned endorsement dated 24.01.2008. It is contended in the
writ petition that petitioners are entitled to cut the trees by seeking
permission from the respondents in the writ petition and
permission ought to have been granted and the application for
permission to fellthe trees has been wrongly rejected by holding
that no permission can be granted to fell the trees situate in the
private lands as the trees were not leased in favour of the
petitioners.
3. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition
following the directions in other cases, remitted the matter to the
respondents for fresh consideration of the application of the
petitioners in accordance with law. Being aggrieved by the said
order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.03.2008 respondents in
the writ petition have preferred this appeal. There is delay of 380
days in filing the appeal and application has been filed for
condoning the said delay in filing the appeal.
4. We have heard the learned Government Advocate
appearing for the appellants.
5. Learned Government Advocate appearing for the
appellants submitted that the delay has been satisfactorily
explained and the learned Single Judge was not justified in setting
aside the order and endorsement issued by the appellants refusing
permission to fell the trees situate in the land belonging to the writ
petitioners~respondents herein without considering the contentions
raised by the appellants in the writ petition and therefore, the
order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.
6. We have considered the contentions of the learned
Government Advocate and scrutinised the material on record.
7. The material on record would clearly show that the
application filed by the writ petitioners-respondents herein seeking
for permission to fell the trees situate in their land has been
rejected by the appellants herein. It is the contention of the writ
petitioners that petitioners are entitled to cut the trees grown in
their land by seeking permission to fell the same from the
appellants, whereas it is contended by respondents–appellar1ts
herein that what was conveyed was the land and ownership of
trees were not conveyed to the writ petitioners and therefore,
question of granting permission to fell the trees belonging to the
Government would not arise and that writ petitioners who are
owners of the land have no right over the trees which were
standing at the time of ganting the lease. The learned Single
Judge has followed the earlier decisions and has set aside the
impugned order and endorsement and remitted the matter to the
appellants for fresh disposal of the application.
_8. It is clear from the perusal of the order passed in
W.P.No.3932/2008 disposed of on 15.02.2008 that the order
passed in the said writ petition has become final and in the said
writ petition identical question arose for consideration regarding
granting of permission to fell the trees in the land belonging to the
writ petitioners and in the said decision, following the earlier
decision of this Court in W.P.No.4-3903/1995; and connected
matters disposed of on 19.7.1996 (M.L.KRlSHNE GOWDA 82.
ANOTHER vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER) while
considering the similar matter detail guidelines have been laid
down for consideration of the application for seeking permission to
fell the trees situate in the land belonging to the writ petitioners
and following the said decision in W.P.No.43003/ 1995 the matter
was remitted to the respondents in the writ petition for fresh
disposal in accordance with law in the light of the observations
made in the order. In View of the fact that the order passed in the
said W.P.No.3932/2007 dated 15.2.2008 has become final and
detail guidelines have been laid down by this court in
W.P.No.43003/1995 disposed of on 19.7.1996 hence, it is clear
that the application is now required to be considered by the
appellants in accordance with the directions issued in
W.P.No.3932/2007 disposed of on 15.2.2008. The learned Single
Judge has not decided the contentions of the parties on merits and
all contentions are kept open to be urged before the Authority and
accordingly, we hold that the order passed by the learned Single
Judge is justified and does not suffer from any error or illegality as
to call for interference in this intra court appeal.
9. There is delay of 380 days in filing the appeal and on
perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the application, it is clear
that the averrnents made in the application would only explain as
to how the delay has occurred in filing the appeal and no cause
much less sufficient cause is made out for condoning the
inordinate delay of 380 days. Accordingly, we hold that there is no
merit in this application filed for condoning the delay in filing the
appeal and pass the following order:
The writ appeal is dismissed on the ground of delay and also
on merits.
sa/-
Chief lus’£1G@
Sd/-
JUDGE
Snb/ _
Index: Yes/No ‘
Web Host: Yes / No