Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.
P.L. Thammanna Gowda —Appellant
Vs.
State of Karnataka and another —Respondent
Writ Petition No. 3512 and 1999
Decided on : 09-02-2001
Trees - Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976 - Section 1, Section 8 - The court dismissed the petition seeking to quash the demand notice and order issued by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, and to direct the issuance of transport permit and payment for forfeited timber and firewood. The court held that the provisions of the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976 applied to the case, and the petitioner, despite being the landowner, was required to obtain permission to fell trees. The court emphasized the importance of preserving trees and the prohibition on felling trees without prior permission.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, claiming to be the absolute owner of a coffee land, sought relief against the seizure of timber and firewood by the Deputy Conservator of Forest. The petitioner argued that as the landowner, he was entitled to fell trees without permission.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the provisions of the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976 applied to the case, and the petitioner was required to obtain permission to fell trees, despite being the landowner. The court also emphasized the importance of preserving trees and the prohibition on felling trees without prior permission.
Issues: The issues involved whether the petitioner, as the landowner, was entitled to fell trees without obtaining prior permission, and whether the provisions of the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976 applied to the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner, despite being the landowner, was required to obtain permission to fell trees, as per the provisions of the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976. The court emphasized the importance of preserving trees and the prohibition on felling trees without prior permission.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed on the grounds that the provisions of the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976 applied to the case, and the petitioner, despite being the landowner, was required to obtain permission to fell trees.
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.— Heard Sri K.B. Jagannath holding brief for Sri K.T. Mohan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
2. By this petition, the Petitioner has prayed for issuance of following reliefs:
a) To quash the demand notice dated 22.3.1995 issued by the second Respondent in No. NOC:Ata: Aranya Sancharidal: 19/92-93 vide Annexure-'J' and the impugned order dated 14.2.1996 and 8.12.1998 passed by the second Respondent in case No. NOC: Ata: Aranya Sancharidala: 19/92-93 vide Annexures-K and L respectively by the issue of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order or direction.
b) To direct the second Respondent to issue transport permit to the Petitioner to transport all the remaining timber and firewood from the land in question by the issue of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction.
c) To direct the second Respondent to pay the value of the timber and fire-wood forfeited and removed by him in order to auction the same by the issue of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction.
d) And to grant any such other incidental relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case and allow this writ petition with costs.
3. According to the Petitioner, he is the absolute owner in possession and enjoyment of 5 acres of coffee land out of Sy. No. 25 situated at Hyarambi Village, Chickmagalur Taluk. According to the Petitioner's case, the land in question has been his ancestral property, inherited by him from his ancestors. The Petitioner has been registered to be the owner of the above land as mentioned earlier and according to the Petitioner he has been paying land revenue and other taxes to the government. There are a number of trees planted on the land by the Petitioner and those trees did exist. The Petitioner admits that in order to maintain proportionate shade and to remove over growth and unwanted trees, the Petitioner entered into an agreement with Smt. Maimunna, W/o. D. Mohammed of Chickmagalur who is a Forest contractor to cut and remove such unwanted trees from the land in question during the year 1992 and that their workers have felled some trees. According to the Petitioner the authorities seized those timbers including fire-wood on the ground that the Petitioner had felled the trees standing on the above said coffee land without requisite permission and registered a case viz., Case No. FOC 19 of 1992-93, dated 6.9.1992. According to the Petitioner, the Respondent No. 2 seized in all 168 logs of timber measuring 64.064 cu.mt. and fire wood measuring 2,900 sq.ft. The Petitioner's case is that the Petitioner represented to the second Respondent i.e., Deputy Conservator of Forest to release those timbers and fire wood on the ground that he did not commit any offence and since he was the owner of the land in question, it was not necessary for the Petitioner to have obtained permission to fell the trees standing on the land. But according to the Petitioner by order dated 5.3.1994, his revision was rejected and it was held that Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976 has been applicable.
4. According to the Petitioner the Petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the order of Respondent No. 2 viz., Writ Petition No. 6865 of 1994 contending among other things that the provisions of Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976 do not apply to the facts of the case and permission was not required to be taken by the Petitioner to fell the standing trees on the land in question. According to the Petitioner, this writ petition was allowed by this Court by order dated 7.4.1994. The copy of the judgment dated 7.4.1994 has been placed as Annexure-'C' to the writ petition. Thereafter, the matter was sent back to Respondent No. 2 - Deputy Conservator of Forest to consider the case afresh after taking into consideration the certificate dated 21.3.1994, alleged to have been issued by the Liaison Officer of Coffee Board according to which t
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
