N K BASHEER AHAMED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the legality and correctness of the endorsement issued by the second respondent (Divisional Forest Officer, Chikmagalur Division, Chikmagalur) dated 3-12-1976, as per Annexure-C, and the endorsement issued by the 1st respondent (State of Karnataka) dated 19-6-1980, as per Annexure-G. In addition the petitioner has also prayed fora writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to refund the amount deposited by him under protest towards seigniorage value pursuant to Annexure-C.

(2.) A few facts giving rise to this writ petition may be noticed in order to appreciate the contentions of the parties. One Channabasavegowda was granted land in an extent of 5 acres in survey number 173 situate in Bogase village, Khandya Hobli, Chikmagalur Taluk. The said Channabasavegowda was granted the land for the purpose of coffee cultivation. Thereafter, the said Channabasavegowda registered himself as an owner u/s 14 of the Coffee Act, got the Record of Rights mutated in his name whereby the land granted to him was given a new survey number. With a view to clearing the land in order to make it fit for coffee cultivation the said Channabasavegowda entered into an agreement with the petitioner herein for sale of the trees standing on the land for a consideration of Rs 16,000/-. The petitioner in accordance with the agreement, cut the trees and applied for Mafi Pass, that is, transport permit, under the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act. On the application of the petitioner, instead of issuing a mafi pass, the second respondent herein issued an endorsement as per Annexure-C, by which he demanded payment of the value of 357 logs of timber, 368 tonnes of firewood and five lorry loads of matchwood at the existing seigniorage value plus sales tax and forest development tax, so as to enable him to issue the mafi pass. The petitioner paid the same under protest. The petitioner also made a representation to the first respondent-State of Karnataka in regard to the payment of seigniorage value recovered from him and requested it to refund the said amount. But the Government refused to accede to the request of the petitioner te refund the said amount by an endorsement dated 19-6-1980, Annexure-G. Aggrieved by these endorsements the petitioner has approached this Court.

(3.) The petitioner's case is that the said Channabasavegowda, from whom he aquired the rights in relation to the trees, was granted the land in question under the previsions of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 91 of the Act provides that while granting the land the Deputy Commissioner may annex such conditions to the grant as he may deem fit before permission to occupy such land is given under Section 93 of the Act. The price, if any, for such land shall include the price of the Government's right to all trees not specially reserved under the provisions of Section 75 of the Act, and shall be recoverable as an arrear of land revenue. It is submitted that in the saguvali chit issued to the said Channabasave gowda, reservation has been made only in respect of sandalwood trees and not in respect of other trees. Therefore, the submission is that the said Channabasave gowda had acquired full rights in respect of the land in question including the trees standing thereon, other than sandalwood trees. It was further submitted that it was permissible for the petitioner to acquire the rights in respect of those trees and in this regard the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of this Court in K. M Basheer & Co. v State of Karnataka & others (1975(1) Kar L.J., 372 and submitted that the price in respect of the trees having also been collected as provided u/s. 91 of the Act it was not open to the Government to collect seigniorage value again.