B M RANJI KARIAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for a declaration that the provisions of Sections 2{1) (e) and the Proviso to Section 8(3} and also Section 8(4) of the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') are viod being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

(2.) It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that Section 2(1) (e) of the Act arbitrarily divides the holdings of lands in the rural areas into two groups by classifying them into Schedule-I and Schedule-ll; that the holders of the lands falling under Schedule-ll are placed at more advantageous position than the holders of the lands falling under Schedule-1: that the Tree Officer has no discretion but to grant permission in respect of the cases falling under the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act, and he cannot also refuse permission to fell trees to the holders of land falling under Schedule-ll and clause (vi) of the aforesaid proviso to section 8(3) of the Act; whereas in the case of holders of lands falling under Schedule-I, a discretion is vested in the tree officer and it is open to him to either grant permission in full or in part or refuse permission: that in the case of applications relating to the trees in the lands falling in Schedule-ll, if the tree officer fails to inform the applicant of his decision within 60 days, the permission shall be deemed to have been granted, whereas in the case of an application in respect of a tree in the rural area of the kind specified in Schedule-I, if the Tree Officer fails to inform the applicant of his decision within one year from the date of receipt of tha spplication by him, the permission shall be deemed to have been granted. Therefore, it is submitted that the provisions contained in Section 2(1) (e) and the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 8 and also the provisions contained i'n sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act, are discriminatory inasmuch as the classification of the lands made into two groups as specified in Schedule-I and Schedule-II is not a reasonable classification and it is not founded on an intelligible differentia and that it has no rational relation to the object sought to be served by the Act.

(3.) I will now examine the validity of the aforesaid provisions in the light of the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner.