Digitally signed by

NAGARAJA B M

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING RESPONDENTS TO REFUND THE ENTIRE UNPAID AMOUNT FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE TREES AMOUNTING TO RS.89,71,764/- WITHOUT ANY DEDUCTIONS, ALONG WITH INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 12 PERCENT PER ANNUM AS DAMAGES FROM THE DATE OF AUCTION UNTIL THE DATE OF PAYMENT AND ETC.,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

The captioned petition is filed seeking for the following reliefs:

"i. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing Respondents to refund the entire unpaid amount from the sale proceeds of the trees amounting to Rs.89,71,764/- without any deductions, along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum as damages from the date of auction until the date of payment, in the interest of justice.

ii. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the official memorandum dated Nil.05.2023 vide bearing No.A4/ADM/MARA/CR-4/2016-17 issued by the 3rd respondent, produced herewith as Annexure-F, insofar as it holds that the petitioner is not entitled to the sale proceeds of the trees on the ground that they had grown prior to the land becoming paradeenasagu bane land, as being illegal, arbitrary and without authority is law.

iii. Pass such other writ, order, or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, to secure the ends of justice."

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA appearing for the respondents.

The facts leading to the case are as under:

The petitioner asserts absolute ownership and lawful physical possession over the coffee estate lands bearing Sy.Nos.79/3, 78/3, 81/2 and 69/2 situated at Abhyathamangala Village, Kushalnagar Taluk, Kodagu District. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the subject lands are “redeemed paradeenasagu bane lands”, i.e., alienated bane lands, which, upon such redemption and assessment to land revenue, vest in the occupant with complete, absolute and unfettered rights not only over the land but also over the standing trees therein. Elaborating this contention, it is urged that once the land is brought under assessment to land revenue, the holder acquires plenary title and interest, free from any residual claim of the State. It is in this backdrop that the petitioner calls in question the action of the respondent-authorities in withholding a sum of Rs.89,71,764/- while disbursing the proceeds relatable to felling of trees, on the premise that the trees in question were grown prior to the land attaining the status of paradeenasagu bane land.

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The short but significant question that arises for consideration is as to whether respondent Nos.2 and 3, while effecting disbursement of the amount towards felling of trees standing on the petitioner’s land, were justified in withholding a sum of Rs.89,71,764/- on the ground now urged.

This issue is no longer res integra and stands squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.52337/2016. It would be apposite to extract paragraph 7.6 of the said judgment, which reads as under:

"7.6 Thus, in that view of the matter, whether the age of the trees was 34 years, greater or lesser than 34 years, is of no relevance. Since from the date on which the amendment came into force, the holder of the land is a full owner and the State would not have any right, title or interest in either the land of the trees grown on the said land. Albeit, if any permission is required to cut any particular/protected variety of trees, the owner would have to secure such requisite permission. That apart, there is no other manner of right, title or interest that the Government can claim as re