STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs. ROBERT DSILVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ appeals are heard and disposed of by this common judgment as common questions arise for consideration. Writ Appeal No. 629 of 1995 arises out of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 26054 of 1993 and Writ Appeal Nos. 716 and 717 of 1995 arises out a common judgment in Writ Petition Nos. 3603 and 3604 of 1994.

(2.) The petitioners in these three writ petitions contended thatthey are deemed to have been granted permission to cut and transport the trees belonging to them by virtue of the deeming provision contained in Section 8(4)(ii) of the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976 (the Act' for short) and the rules made thereunder, inasmuch as the Tree Officer failed to inform them of his decision within one year from the date of receipt of the application by him. They sought a declaration that the sanction to fell the trees is deemed to have been granted and that they are entitled to cut and transport the trees from the lands belonging to them, and they further sought issuance of directions to the respondents in the writ petitions not to obstruct the felling of the trees and allow transporting the timber by issuing Mafi passes in accordance with the rules.

(3.) The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 26054 of 1993 claims tobe the owner of the lands in Survey Nos. 22/1, 46/1, 46/2 and 46/3 (old Nos. 22/1 and 46) of Mukkodlu Village of Madikeri Taluk, Kodagu District, having purchased the said lands in public auction on 23-1-1934 held by the Revenue Authorities for recovery of arrears of land revenue from the previous holder of lands free from all encumbrances, resulting in transfer of absolute and unlimited rights over the lands, including the rights to tree growth thereon. He contended that he made an application dated 22-5-1990 in Form No. 1 prescribed under Rule 4(1) of the rules to the Tree Officer seeking permission to fell and remove unwanted and mature trees, numbering 771 in the said lands. It is further stated that in pursuance of the application, opinion was sought from the concerned Revenue Authority. The lands were surveyed, trees were marked and necessary recommendations were made. Nevertheless the petitioner received an order dated 13-5-1993 rejecting his application for permission from the Tree Officer. The petitioner contended that by virtue of the deemed provision, permission is deemed to have been granted on the expiry of one year from the date of the application and hence the order dated 13-5-1993 was illegal and made without competence and void that the petitioner had cut and felled the trees and he cannot be prevented from removing the cut timber,