SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1988 Supreme(Kar) 56

M.RAMA JOIS
JOSE CHAKE MANAKATTU – Appellant
Versus
TREE OFFICER, DY. CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS – Respondent


Advocates:
S.Udayashankar, V.V.UPADHAYA

RAMA JOIS, J. ,, J.

( 1 ) 1. In this writ petition, the following question of law arises for consideration : whether a person who has cut the trees standing on his own land, in contiavention of the provisions of the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act 1976 ('the Act' for short), is liable to pay the value of the trees in addition to the compounding fees payable under clause (a) of Section 21 (1) of the Act?

( 2 ) THIS petition has come up for preliminary hearing after notice to the respondents. By consent of both the counsel, it is Taken up for final hearing and is disposed of by this order.

( 3 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are as follows :-The petitioner is the owner, in possession and enjoyment of the land comprised in S. No. 103/2 measuring 8 acres 57 cents, situate at Kalmanjevillage, belthangady Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. After securing a licence for raising rubber plantation from rubber Board (vide Annexure-A) he cut the trees grown on the land. Fire-wood secured from cutting the trees have been stacked on the land belonging to him. Section 8 (1) of the Act imposes restriction on felling of trees standing on any land whether the person concerned is the lawful owner













Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top