JUDGMENT

RAY, C. J.:— These appeals are by certificate from the judgment dated 18 April, 1975 of the High Court of Karnataka.

2. The respondents were the petitioners in the High Court. The respondents are either holders of bane lands in the District of Coorg or holders of such lands who purchased timber standing on them from such holders.

3. The respondents in the High Court asked for writ directing the Divisional Forest Officer of the State to issue permits to the respondents to remove trees standing on bane lands as particularised in the petition.

4. The Divisional Forest Officer refused permits to the respondents to cut trees and remove timber. The two grounds on which the respondents challenged the order of refusal are these: First, the respondents claimed a vested right to redeem the trees on bane lands on payment of 50 per cent of the value of timber under Coorg Land and Revenue Regulation of 1899 and the rules framed thereunder. Second, the respondents claimed that, by Section 75 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, an absolute right was conferred on them in respect of trees on bane lands and the Government have no right even to demand 50 per cent of the value.

5. The learned single Judge referred to the provisions of Coorg Land and Revenue Regulation of 1899 and in particular Rule 97 thereof. The learned single Judge came to the conclusion that rules conferred a right on the holders of bane land to redeem the trees standing on such Bane lands. He also held that under the rules, the respondents were required to pay 50 per cent of the value of the timber to the State along with other incidental charges.

6. The contention of the State that the Coorg Land and Revenue Regulation, 1899 was repealed and, therefore, the respondents had no 1653 right under those Regulations to remove timber was repelled by the learned single Judge. The learned Judge held that Section 202 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act of 1964 did not affect the right acquired by the holders of Bane lands in spite of repeal of the Coorg Land and Revenue Regulation of 1899. In this view of the matter, the learned single Judge did not consider it necessary to express any opinion on the second contention of the respondents whether under Section 75 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act of 1964, the State had no right to demand 50 per cent of the value.

7. The Division Bench on appeal held that the respondents could be divided into two categories. As to the first category, the Division Bench in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 59 of the judgment said that those who deposited before 15 January, 1974, 50 per cent of the value of timber as determined by the Divisional Forest Officer, could be granted permits to cut and remove timber. If there was any difference between the 50 per cent of the actual value of timber and the amount paid on the basis of determination by the Divisional Forest Officer, the Divisional Forest Officer would recover the difference as mentioned in the said paragraph 59 (1).

8. In sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 59, the Division Bench dealt with respondents who did not fall within category 1, but made applications before 15 January, 1974.

9. The Solicitor General Appearing for the State with his usual fairness said that he did not want to take up time of the Court in going into the merits of the appeals. He accepted the conclusions of the High Court in paragraph 59 of the judgment. The result is that the conclusions of the High Court in paragraph 59 are affirmed.

10. The matter, however, does not end there because counsel for the respondents submitted that the Division Bench went into the nature and tenure of Bane lands and expressed views which are not correct and which in any event were not necessary for the purpose of the present case.

11. The learned single Judge rightly did not express any view on the second question as to whether the Bane land holders could ask for removal of trees without payment of full value. The Division Bench, however, in paragrap