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 or occupier of the land. It reads:"8 Restriction on felling of trees- (1) With effect on and from the appointed day, notwithstanding any custom, usage contract or law for the time being in force, no person shall fell any tree or cause any tree to be felled in any land whether in his ownership or occupancy or otherwise, except with the previous permission of the Tree officer. "sub-section (2) requires the person desirous of cutting tree to make an application to the Tree Officer seeking permission to cut the trees. Sub-section (3) thereof regulates the grant of permission. Cutting of trees without securing such permission amounts to an offence punishable under Section 22 of the Act. Section 21 of the Act, however, provides for compounding the offence. That section reads-'power to compound offences- (1) The State Government may, by order empower a Tree Officer.- (a) to compound on payment of a sum not exceeding five thousand rupees any offence under this Act; (b) to release any property seized or liable to confiscation, on payment of the value thereof, as estimated by such officer (2) On the payment of such sum or such value or both, as the case may be, to such officer, if in custody, shall be released. The property, if any, seized shall be released and no further proceedings shall be taken against such offender or property. "it is common ground that State Government, in exercise of its power under Section 21 of the Act has fixed maximum compounding fee at Rs. 5. 000/- and has authorised the Tree Officers to exercise the power of compounding. 3. In exercise of the power given to him under the Act, the Tree Officer, by his order dated 9-12-1987 (Annexure-C) called upon the petitioner to pay a compounding fee of Rs. 12,575/ -. Questioning the legality of the said order the petitioner has presented this petition.

( 4 ) SRI Upadhyaya, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that even according to clause (a) of Section 21 (1) of the Act, the maximum fee for compounding an offence under the Act was rs. 5,000/- and therefore the impugned order, by which the Tree Officer has levied a compounding fee of Rs. 12,575/- was without authority of law.

( 5 ) SRI Udayashankar learned Counsel for the State did not dispute that the maximum compounding fee leviable in view of Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act was rs. 5,000/ -. He however submitted that the amount of Rs. 12,575/- which the petitioner was called upon to pay consisted of a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards the compounding fee and the balance was the value of the trees cut by the petitioner which he had to pay.

( 6 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner contended that, as the trees were situate on the patta land belonging to the petitioner and consequently belonged to him, there was no authority vested in the tree Of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document