1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON9BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI

R.S.A. NO.1038 OF 2015 (RES)

BETWEEN:

1.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,

REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,

UDUPI DISTRICT,

UDUPI - 576 101.

2.

THE ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,

MOODABIDRI SUB DIVISION,

MOODABIDRI - 574 227,

KARKALA TALUK.

3.

THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER,

KARKALA POST,

KARKALA - 574 104.

4.

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS,

KUNDAPUR TALUK, POST,

KUNDAPUR - 576 201.

...APPELLANTS

(BY SRI.VENKAT SATYANARAYANA, HCGP)

AND:

1.

E.PADMANABHA,

PROPRIETOR,

ANANTHA PADMANABHA

INDUSTRIES, JODUKATT,

KARKALA - 574 104.

2

2.

THE JUNIOR ENGINEER (ELECTRICAL),

KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION

CORPORATION LTD.,

KARKALA POST, KARKALA,

UDUPI - 574 104.

& RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.SRIKANTH N.V., ADVOCATE FOR

SRI SACHIN B.S. FOR R1;

SRI H.V.DEVARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER

SECTION 100 OF CPC.

THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL COMING ON FOR

ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE

FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

Learned

High

Court

Government

Pleader

for

appellants has appeared in-person.

Sri.Srikanth N.V., learned counsel on behalf of

Sri.Sachin B.S., for respondent-1 and Sri.H.V.Devaraj,

learned counsel for respondent-2, have appeared through

video conferencing.

3

This appeal is posted for admission after issue of

notice respondents.

2.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their rankings before the trial Court.

3.

The plaint averments are stated as under:

The

plaintiff

is

the

proprietor

of

<Ananthapadmanabha Industries=, Jodukatte, Miyar. His

brother - E.Surendra died on 26/27.06.1991, and he

became the proprietor and the sole representative of the

Partnership firm <Ananthapadmanabha Industries=.

It is stated that plaintiff has been running timber and

wood industry including a Saw Mill under the name and

style of <M/s.Ananthapadmanabha Industries=. He has

obtained valid Saw Mills license duly issued by the Deputy

Conservator of Forests, Kundapura. He has been renewing

the license from time to time as required and rules.

It is also stated that the defendants are aware of the

fact that the plaintiff has never violated any forest law nor

4

committed any offence under the Forest Act. He had never

become liable to be proceeded against for infringements of

provisions of the Forest Act. However, on 07.05.1988, the

Assistant Conservator of Forest issued direction to the

Range Forest Officer to effect seizure of the Saw Mill.

It is stated that the Assistant Conservator of Forest

has no power or authority to pass the order or direct the

seizure. In pursuance of the order, the Range Forest

Officer clamped chain with lock around the Saw Mill and

removed the timber, logs, poles and unfinished timber

goods and transported the same to the Office at Karkala.

Therefore, plaintiff lodged a complaint against defendants

2 and 3. The plaintiff filed a writ petition before this Court

in W.P.Nos.8187 & 8188/1988 and the petitions were

disposed of on 13.06.1988 directing defendants 2 to 4 to

release the Saw Mill and to hand over the same to the

plaintiff.

It is averred that the release order was not

implemented by the defendants. Hence, on 13.07.1988

5

plaintiff wrote a letter seeking compliance of the order of

this Court. But the Deputy Conservator of Forest

suspended the license of the plaintiff. The defendants 2 to

4 moved this Court for review of the earlier order of

release, but they could not succeed.

The plaintiff pleaded that he has suffered loss due to

the tortious act of defendants and hence, they are liable to

pay the compensation. Accordingly, action was brought by

filing a suit.

On service of summons defendants 1 to 4 appeared

Defendant - 05 remained absent. The second defendant

filed written statement. He denied