ROSE L TAUR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petitioner, namely, Mrs. Rose L Taur resides in a premises bearing No. 430 in Jayanagar. The building belongs to one Sri Shivanna Gowda under whom the writ petitioner is a tenant. The landlord has sought for the eviction of the tenant and according to the writ petitioner, there is no love lost between them. There is a small compound enclosing the land appurtenant to the building and it appears that there is a pomegranate plant therein. The branches of the plant were spreading. The Electricity Department instructed the writ petitioner, according to her, to cut such of the branches which were likely to come in contact with the live wire of electrical energy that passes across the compound Accordingly, the petitioner cut some of the branches in the interest of safety. This was wrongly reported by the landlord to the Forest Department respondent No. 2 stating that the writ petitioner had cut and removed the tree. Accordingly, a notice was served on the writ petitioner as per Annexure-A dated 28-10-80 which reads :

(2.) Thereafter, the notice was suitably replied as per Annexure-B dt. 4-11-80. The writ petitioner informed the officer that -the tree was not cut ; but that only some of the branches were chopped with a view to prevent them from coming in contact with the live electric wire and that she was not liable for any action. Ultimately, the tree officer sent a notice dated 6-12-1980 to the present writ petitioner which reads :

(3.) In order to appreciate the contentions, raised before me, it is necessary to look into the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976. In the Act the word 'tree' is defined as follows :