POTHANNA G Vs. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the respondent to return/release the bank guarantee of Rs. 70,800/- and Rs. 1,08,000/- of State Bank of India, Nirmal and also directing the respondent to return the security deposit of Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 40,000/- deposited by the petitioners through their G.P.A. holder.

(2.) In the affidavit of the petitioners stated that they are the owners and pattadars of the land bearing Sy. Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 situated in Lonkapadu village of Mamada Mandal and the lands are classified as 'Agricultural Dry Patta Lands' as per the proceedings of the Divisional Forest Officer, Nirmal in No.B/853/91 dated 11-10-1991. When the petitioners applied for permission for felling the trees, existing in the said land bearing Sy.Nos. 1 to 4, the Conservator of Forests, Adilabad circle vide order dated 17-6-1992 accorded permission to fell the trees in the said land covering an extent of Ac. 30.45 cents with certain conditions that the petitioners should keep security deposit of Rs. 3,000/- with Divisional Forest Officer and the transportation of the same should be completed within sixty days etc. The petitioners are 25 in number and accordingly, the Divisional Forest Officer ultimately issued a notice to deposit Rs. 70,800/- towards deposit for regeneration charges on 20-7-1992 and accordingly, they have deposited. It is further stated that the lands being patta lands, no regeneration charges need be paid. However, the amount was paid under the threat that the petitioners would be permitted only on their undertaking to deposit the said amount. In these circumstances, the General Power of Attorney holder for all the 25 petitioners deposited an amount of Rs. 70,800/- with the State Bank of India, Nirmal Branch. But there is no legal or statutory power with the respondents to demand or collect the regeneration charges since the lands are the patta lands and not a forest land. It is further stated that the respondent insisted that unless the regeneration charges are paid or deposited, no permission would be given to them to fell the trees. Hence, they have given an undertaking as demanded by the officers, besides making security deposit of Rs. 3,000/- in Divisional Forest Officer, Nirmal and it was only in those circumstances, the said security deposit and payments were made and bank guarantee has been executed. But the respondent had no authority to get the security deposit of Rs. 40,000/- nor bank guarantee for Rs. 1,08,000/- the petitioners are entitled for the return of the bank guarantee and refund of the security deposit of Rs. 3,000/- and Rs. 40,000/-deposited by theG.P.A. holder on behalf of the petitions: Hence, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue necessary directions.

(3.) A detailed counter is filed by the respondent denying the allegations made by the petitioners. It is stated that the respondent did not threaten the petitioners for depositing regeneration charges and security, deposits and in fact respondent acted as per the condition, imposed by the Conservator of Forests, Adilabad in Ref. No. 6191/93-S1 dated 3-5-1993, while granting permission to the petitioners for felling the trees and accordingly, the amounts have been deposited. The petitioners deposited the same long back in 1992, but after a lapse of nearly five years, now they are claiming the deposits and the same illegal. If the conditions imposed by the Conservator of Forests were not acceptable, they should have opposed the same. But they never protested, nor they filed any writ petition challenging the same in the year 1992 itself. All these conditions are imposed by the Conservator of Forests and after permission for felling the trees. In these circumstances; the petitioners could not have filed the present writ petition. At any rate, there is no cause of action to file the present writ petition. In fact the G.P.A. holder, while seeking permission to fell trees, agreed for regenerating the area and as a security for the same, he made security deposits. But the G.B.A.holder failed to abide by the said conditions, imposed for felling the trees and he failed to regenerate the area, and in case of M. Chinniah, already there is a recommendation to for feit the regeneration charges deposited by him. Thus having failed to abide by the conditions agreed, the petitioners cannot be allowed to take shelter under this writ petition. The learned Counsel for the respondent further submitted that at any rate, the present claim for refund of the amount deposited etc., is barred by time, since such deposits were made only in the year 1992 and the writ petition is filed nearly after five years and as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed not only on the ground of limitation, but also on the ground of laches. He further contended that the petitioners are estopped from claiming refund of the amounts so deposited/having taken advantage of the order and they cannot be permitted to approbate or reprobate at the same time. He further submitted that there is neither equity nor justice in their favour and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.