M M KARIAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner assailing the correctness of the order dated 6th November 2002 and 19th/22nd November 2002 bearing No.RKS/2/CR/28/PARADEENA/99/2000 vide Annexure A and B on the file of the second respondent, has presented the instant writ petition. Further, he has sought for a direction, directing the second respondent to release in favour of petitioner the logs and firewood prepared and referred to in the orders of second respondent dated 6th November 2002 and 19th/22nd November 2002 vide Annexures A and B by collecting the value and takes due thereon without insisting for interest both on the value of trees and five wood and various takes but subject to the payment of the value and the takes payable thereof.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, petitioner is a owner of Coffee Estate comprised in Sy.No.125 and 129 of lkola village. THE lands are paradeena in tenure. THE Coffee Laisen Officer who had visited the Estate of the petitioner had advised him to fell certain excess trees. THErefore, petitioner had applied to second respondent seeking permission to fell certain trees and after obtaining permission, petitioner fell the permitted trees and converted them into logs and firewood. THE second respondent has issued the impugned demand notice vide Annexure A as per the order of Government dated 12th December 1997, wherein, it is directed that, in all cases of felling trees, in unredeemed Coffee Estates in Kodagu District, the logs have to be delivered to the Government depot and the owner of the land is entitled to be paid 50% of the price recoverable from the sale to be held in the Government Depot. THE said order also directed that 25% of the soigniamage rate should be paid to the owner at the time when he delivers the logs to the Government Depot. THE petitioner sent a communication dated 16th November 2002 to second respondent stating that, under the new Government orders, there is no claim for any interest. And hence, the claim for interest be given up. Instead of considering the said communication as per the Government Order dated 12th December 1997 vide Annexure C and Government Order dated 2nd November 1998 vide Annexure D, the second respondent insisted that, the petitioner should pay the interest to the value of the forest produce at 18% per annum. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders, referred above, passed by second respondent vide Annexures A and B and seeking appropriate directions, referred above, petitioner felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel appearing for petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents. After careful evaluation of the material available on record, as rightly pointed out by learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondents, it is a fact that, petitioner himself has given an undertaking by his communication dated 17th September 2002 vide Annexure R-1 produced along with the statement of objections, wherein, petitioner has stated in unequivocal terms that, he is ready and willing to pay the value of the trees which are fell along with tax and interest and requested the authority to permit him to transport the same. The relevant portion reads thus: Kannadam