RADHABAI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER claims to be a purchaser of Sy. No. 15/2 measuring 3 acres 12 guntas of Kannadagal village in Yellapur taluk, Uttara Kannada District, having pur-chased the same from one Duming Pavin siddi for a consideration amount of Rs. 5. 000/- by a sale deed dated 30-1-1975. It is claimed that the petitioner is growing paddy, Coconut and other crops in his land. It is also claimed that forest land abutting this agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 32-A had been sanctioned as the strip land to Sy. No. 15/2 by the Government in the year 1952, for the beneficial enjoyment of the agricultural land. Petitioner claims that she was also enjoying the strip land by planting fruit bearing trees such as Jackfruit, Mango. Cashewnut and other fruit yielding trees. The petitioner has also pleaded that the forest officials had made an attempt to plant forest trees in the strip land and the petitioner objected to it and prevented the same. The petitioner also claims that the Forest department has no right to take such action as it was the land, which was granted in favour of the owner of the agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 32-A earlier and which the petitioner had purchased. However, the forest officials did not accept the same, but directed the petitioner to ascertain the right, if any, before the Court of law. Petitioner also claims that she has registered a Civil suit O. S. No. 32/2000 before the City Civil judge (Jr. Dn.) at Yellapur, praying for restraining the defendants therein, but it appears that the petitioner was not successful in getting any positive orders in the said suit.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the 3rd respondent Assistant Conservator of Forest, Yellapura, has now passed an order in case No. A-5 strip land CR 2001-2002 dated 30-8-2002, withdrawing the concession of providing strip land to the petitioner's land in Sy. No. 15/2 in violation of the provisions of Section 131 (C) of the Karnataka Forest Manual under which provision the concession of strip land had been extended to the owner of the land in Sy. No. 15/2. As such a concession has been withdrawn forthwith, the petitioner has approached this Court questioning the legality of the order.

(3.) SRI Krishnamurthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order is without jurisdiction, that it has been passed without giving opportunity to the petitioner, that it is also not in consonance with the provisions of Section 131 (C) (v) of the karnataka Forest Manual and is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner, elaborating his submission points out that the power to withdraw the strip concession lies with the Deputy Commissioner who has to act under the control of the Conservator of Forests, Division Commissioner by upholding the order of the Deputy Commissioner and as in the instant case such power has been exercised by the Assistant conservator it is one without jurisdiction. Learned counsel also submits that the order is bad for violation of principles of natural justice.