UDAYA ESHWARAN Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is before this Court assailing the endorsement dated 1-2-2012 which is impugned at Annexure-E to the petition. The petitioner has also sought for issue of mandamus to direct the second respondent to issue permission to cut all the trees which are enumerated and numbered for cutting as per the list at Annexure-D to the. petition. The petitioner claims to be owner of the Coffee Estate in Survey No. 56/3 of Kirudale Village, Suntikoppa Nad, Somvarapet Taluk, Kodagu District. The said coffee estate consists of grown trees which the petitioner now desires to cut and remove. In that regard, the petitioner is stated to have made a representation for permission to fell the trees. At an earlier instance, since the ownership of the trees was in issue, the parties are stated to have been before this Court in several writ petitions, reference to which is made in the order dated 18-1-2010 at Annexure-B to the petition. Since a direction had been issued by this Court to consider the rights of the parties with regard to ownership of the trees, the Deputy Commissioner is stated to have passed an order dated 18-1-2010. The petitioner claims that the right relating to the ownership of the trees in respect of the petitioner was also a part of the consideration in the said order. The correctness of this aspect of the matter, in any event, cannot be disputed inasmuch as the impugned communication dated 1-2-2012 (Annexure-E) itself refers to the determination said to have been made by the Deputy Commissioner. In that circumstance, when the ownership had been decided, the only issue for consideration was the age of trees.

(2.) From the impugned endorsement, it is seen that the application filed by the petitioner is yet to be considered and reasons indicated for keeping the same pending is that a circular dated 8-12-2006 which has been issued indicating guidelines for the determination of age of the trees had been withdrawn on 5-6-2007 and as such since there are no further guidelines issued, the petitioner's case could not be considered at that juncture.

(3.) The respondents in their objection statement have also referred to this aspect of the matter and have contended that the decision on the application filed by the petitioner has not yet been taken. It has been indicated at this juncture that the permission could be granted subject to the petitioner accepting 90% of the net value after transporting the timber to the Government depot.