K.R. CHANDRASHEKHAR Vs. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY FOREST DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 11.10.2012 impugned at Annexure -H to the petition. The petitioner has also assailed the communication dated 26.02.1998 at Annexure -D to the petition. The petitioner who is an agriculturist was granted land under the order dated 28.02.1985 to the extent of 3 acres 30 guntas in Sy. No. 196 of Doddamagarvalli village and a further extent of 10 acres in the same survey number was granted to the brother of the petitioner on 07.12.1988. The said land was for the purpose of coffee plantation. In that view, the tree growth which would hinder coffee plantation and shade lapping was required to be done. It is in that circumstance, the petitioner had made a request for felling permission. As required, the Deputy Commissioner was to convey the opinion and the only question that was required to be noticed was with regard to reservation of the trees made at the time of grant and also the value of the tree growth that had been collected and in that view whether any additional value was required to be paid.

(2.) IN an earlier instance, when the demand had been made, the petitioner was before this Court in W.P. No. 11048/1998 disposed of on 12.09.1999. Pending consideration of the petition since the tree growth was to be removed, the amount of Rs. 5,32,895/ - which was demanded from the petitioner was ordered to be deposited which was subject to result of the petition. Since the tree growth was removed, the petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make appropriate request regarding the said amount. The petitioner was once again forced to come before this Court in W.P. No. 22967/2001 which was disposed of on 08.03.2007. While considering the issue relating to valuation of the trees vis   -vis the value that was paid at the time of the grant and the additional value if any to be paid, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration by the authorities after providing opportunity to the petitioner and in that circumstance had remanded the matter. The petitioner however contending that all materials were available before this Court and the decision could have been taken by this Court itself and being aggrieved by the remand made, had preferred an appeal in W.A. No. 791/2007. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the appeal on 20.06.2012 after referring to the conditions of grant had observed that the amount paid was tentative and there is nothing to show that the amount paid by the appellant was based on the actual valuation of the standing trees before issuance of the Saguvali Chit. Though having made the said observation, the remand as made by the learned Single Judge was not interfered and was left open for reconsideration. As such, the matter was reconsidered by the authority by the impugned order dated 11.10.2012.

(3.) LEARNED Government Advocate would also refer to the observations made by the Hon'ble Division Bench where in fact the contention put forth by the respondents is said to have been upheld by the Hon'ble Division Bench according to the learned Government Advocate. In such circumstance, it is contended that the authority while passing the impugned order has referred to the observations of the Hon'ble Division Bench and has thereafter come to the conclusion. In that view, when the value paid earlier was tentative and also since the Deputy Commissioner had made certain observations with regard to the delay in payment of the amount at the first instance, the order is justified.