TUKRA Vs. PADDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are before this Court assailing the order dated 23.09.2011 passed by the third respondent in Appeal No. 09/2009 -10 at Annexure -P to the petitions. The petitioners are also seeking for a direction to the respondents to consider the application filed by the petitioners dated 21.02.2007 as at Annexure -E to the petitions. The father of the first petitioner was granted land measuring 4 acres in Sy. No. 290 (Old Sy. No. 95/P6) situate at Bintravalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Koppa Taluk, Chikkamagalur District. The first petitioner had made an application dated 21.02.2007 (Annexure -E) seeking felling permission in respect of 14 jungle wood trees stated to have been grown by the petitioner in the land which had been granted to him. At the first instance, the Assistant Commissioner, on considering the application of the petitioner for the purpose of opinion from the revenue department has arrived at the conclusion that the tree growth belongs to the petitioner, since at the time of grant there was no tree growth and as such there can be no objection for permitting the petitioner to cut and remove the said jungle wood trees. The Assistant Conservator of Forest is also stated to have arrived at the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled to cut and remove 13 trees from the said land, since according to him, one of tree could not have been allowed to be cut.

(2.) DESPITE such opinion, since the application of the first petitioner had not been considered, the petitioner was before this Court in W.P. No. 5539/2008. This Court while disposing of the petition on 11.08.2008 had taken note of the submission of the learned Government Advocate that second opinion was required in the said matter and therefore, the action would be taken subsequent thereto. The petition was disposed of with a direction to consider the application in accordance with law. The request of the petitioner was thereafter considered and as per Annexure -K, the earlier opinion of the authorities is stated to have been reiterated, but the order at Annexure -L did not favourably consider the application filed by the petitioner. The petitioner had therefore filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. Since, there was delay, the same had been rejected. But when the petitioners were before this Court in W.P. No. 34146/2010, this Court by its order dated 02.11.2010 had condoned the delay and directed consideration of the appeal. Subsequent thereto, the appeal No. 9/2009 -10 has been considered and the request of the petitioner has been rejected by the order dated 23.09.2011. It is in that circumstance, the petitioners are before this Court.

(3.) IN the light of the rival contentions, I have perused the petition papers. The sequence of events noticed above would no doubt indicate with regard to the opinion furnished at the first instance by the Revenue Officer as also the Officer of the Forest Department. In that light, what is necessary to be noticed is as to whether the order impugned herein is justified in law and as to whether the necessary particulars which was required to be considered by the Appellate Authority in fact has been adverted to before coming to a conclusion.