P R KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SHIMOGA DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS are challenging Annexure-A, an order dated 25-10-1999 in this petition. They are also seeking for a writ in the nature of prohibition, prohibiting the first respondent from passing any order on the basis of the impugned order. They also want a direction to the third respondent to pay the value of the timber which is realised by auction of the timber cut and deposited in Government depot by the petitioner.

(2.) PETITIONERS state in the petition that the Special Assistant Commissioner, Shimoga, in terms of the orders dated 27-3-1972 and 10-1-1973 granted 18 acres of dry land in Sy. No. 40 of Murur Village of sagar Taluk in favour of one Ganapayya. His brother Ramappa was also granted 9 acres of dry land in the same survey number by the Special assistant Commissioner, Shimoga for an upset price. Ganapayya died leaving behind a Will in favour of Ramappa. After the death of ramappa, petitioners are in possession and they are cultivating the land. They were required to pay the malki value at the time of grant of the land. The petitioners did not know about the non-payment of the malki value and as soon as the malki value was demanded by the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioners have paid the same. The Deputy commissioner sought for an explanation with regard to the delay in making the payment. Explanation was submitted by the petitioner. Deputy Commissioner accepted the payment.

(3.) PETITIONER made an application to the third respondent seeking for felling permission in terms of Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act. The third respondent referred the matter to the first respondent for revenue opinion. The first respondent gave an opinion on 17-4-1998 stating that the petitioners have a right in respect of the trees situated on the land in terms of Annexure-B. Petitioners were issued permission in terms of An-nexure-C. After felling permission, it appears, some person inimically disposed to the petitioners complained to the third respondent, and the third respondent issued Annexure-A. Annexure-A is challenged in this Court.