MAHADEVAIAH Vs. TAHSELDAR GUNDLUPET TALUK MYSORE DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THEY first occupied government land unauthorisedly, then got it regularised for cultivation and are now claiming the right to fell and remove the trees growing on the same. Applications seeking sale of the trees in their favour having been turned down the petitioners have filed these writ petitions, assailing the rejection orders.

(2.) THE petitioners unauthorisedly occupied two acres each of government land situate in sy. Nos. 85 and 86 of village channamallipura in gundlupet taluk of Mysore district. The unauthorised occupation was regularised for cultivation by the competent authority in terms of Section 94-a of the land revenue act by order dated 24th september, 1992. the trees growing on the land in question were however reserved in favour of the government and therefore continued to remain government property. A joint application was thereafter made on 20th of september, 1995, by the petitioners before the deputy conservator of forests, gundlupet, for permission to cut and remove the trees with a view to enabling them to extend their agricultural operations. This request did not find favour with the officer who rejected the same and asked the petitioners to forebear from cutting, removing or selling the trees in question which were government property. Even the tahsildar appears to have issued a similar communication, aggrieved whereof the petitioners filed W. P. nos. 41469 to 41473 of 1995 in this court seeking a direction against the respondents for grant of permission to them to cut and remove the trees in their respective parcels of the land. The writ petitions were eventually disposed of by my noble brother raveendran, j. By his order dated 6th of september, 1996. His lordship held that since the grant made in favour of the petitioners was only in respect of land unauthorisedly occupied by them, the trees growing on the same continued to remain government property and that the respondents were justified in forbidding the sale or removal of the said trees. A direction was all the same issued to the respondents to consider and dispose of the petitioner's applications in accordance with Rule 11 (4) of the Karnataka land grant rules, 1969 with the observation that under the said Rule only such trees as were not reserved could be sold to the petitioners. An application for clarification of the said order was thereafter filed by the petitioners which was disposed of by this court on 2nd of july, 1997 with the observation that if the petitioners were aggrieved of the decision taken by the competent authority they shall be at liberty to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings. The tahsildar has pursuant to the directions issued by this court rejected the petitioner's application seeking sale of the tree growth in their favour on the ground that the trees in question are reserved trees and cannot therefore be sold or allowed to be felled. Aggrieved, the petitioners have filed these petitions as already noticed earlier.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioners strenuously argued that the refusal on the part of the respondent/tahsildar to sell the trees growing on the land in question was in violation of the Provisions of Rule 11 (4) of the land grant rules, 1969. He urged that if the forest department failed to remove the tree growth on the granted land within a period of one year from the date of the grant, the petitioners acquired an indefeasible right to purchase the said trees on payment of the value assessed by the forest authorities. Since the department had failed to remove the trees within the stipulated period, the petitioner's right, argued the learned counsel, to purchase the trees could not be denied. It was also contended that the trees in question were not reserved trees, which expression it was contended, was limited to rose-wood and sandalwood trees only. Denial of permission to purchase the trees was according to the learned counsel contrary to the scheme of the rules.