Remanded

Sri. P a Basheer v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Nov 2022WP/11082/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition seeking to quash endorsements imposing seigniorage for transporting mango logs from coffee plantation. The court remanded the matter to Authorities to take a fresh decision relying on documentary evidence establishing the land as alienated Bane land while setting aside the earlier order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned endorsements dated 12th February, 2016 are set aside. The matter is remanded for a fresh decision after an opportunity is afforded to the petitioners.

Sri. P a Basheer Vs the State of Karnataka — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

WP NO.11082 OF 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 08^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.11082 OF 2016 (GM-FOR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. P.A. BASHEER S/O LATE ABDUL KHADER AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS R/AT: BETHU VILLAGE, NAPOKLU POST, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 572 121.

¶9

SMT. J.A. JAMEELA W/O P.A. BASHEER AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/AT: SINGATHUR VILLAGE, NAPOKLU POST, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 572 121.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. M.T. NANAIAH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRABHUGOUD B. TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR M S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU -560 001.

¶15

THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST MADIKERI DIVISION,

¶16

¶17

WP NO.11082 OF 2016

¶18

MADIKERI,

¶19

KODAGU DISTRICT -572 121.

¶20

THE ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FOREST MADIKERI DIVISION, MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT - 572 121.

¶21

THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER BAGAMANDALA RANGE, MADIKERE TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT - 572 121.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. A.R. SHARADAMBA, AGA)

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENTS DATED 12^TH FEBRUARY, 2016 VIDE ANNEXURES ‘E1’ & ‘E2’ HOLDING THAT IT IS ILLEGAL AND INOPERATIVE; DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO ISSUE TRANSPORT PASSES TO TRANSPORT THE TIMBER LOGS PREPARED OUT OF THE 7 AND 5 MANGO TREES FROM THE PETITIONERS LAND BEARING SURVEY NOS.74/1 AND 74/3 OF SINGATHUR VILLAGE RESPECTIVELY FORTHWITH; AND ETC.

¶25

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

O R D E R

¶27

Petitioners in this petitioner claim to be the owners of the

¶28

alienated Bane land bearing Survey Nos.74/1 and 74/3 of Singathur village. Petitioners have raised Coffee plantation in the said land, in which over-matured Mango trees were existing, which were planted and maintained by petitioners as

¶29

¶30

WP NO.11082 OF 2016

¶31

shade trees in their Coffee plantation. It is further stated in the

¶32

petition that as a matter of cutting and transportation of trees planting in the private land holdings, the State Government has exempted the trees including the Mango trees, from the operation of Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976 (for short, hereinafter referred to a ‘Act’). It is stated that, earlier the Mango trees were not there within the exempted category and thereafter, in order to encourage the growing of varieties of trees in the Agriculture land holdings, the State Government has removed the restrictions for cutting and transportation in terms of the official gazette dated 13^th January, 2015 (Annexure-A). It is further stated that the Government has issued another notification dated 25^th April, 2015 (Annexure-C), withdrawing the earlier notification dated 09^th March, 2015. It is the contention of petitioners that, in order to regulate shade in the respective Coffee estates, petitioners have cut 7 and 5 Mango trees respectively, and sought for transporting the same. The respondent No.4 herein has submitted the report to the respondent No.3 herein, seeking proper action against the petitioners in the matter of issuing relevant licence to transport

¶33

¶34

WP NO.11082 OF 2016

¶35

Mango logs. It is further stated in the petition that the respondent No.3, taking into consideration the factual aspects that the exemption has been revoked, gave a report to the respondent No.2, that action could be taken against the petitioners. Accordingly, the respondent No.2 herein, by order dated 12^th February, 2016 issued an endorsement, directing the petitioners to pay the seigniorage value in order to get the transport pass as per Annexures ‘E1’ and ‘E2’ respectively. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioners have presented this writ petition.

¶36

On service of notice, respondent-Government entered appearance and filed detailed statement of objections specifically taking a defence that land in question is not alienated Bane land and the petitioners have not produced any documents before the respondent-Authorities to establish that the land in question is alienated Bane land. Therefore, respondent-Authorities sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶37

I have heard Sri. M.T. Nanaiah, learned Senior Counsel for Sri. Prabhugoud B. Tumbigi, appearing for

¶38

¶39

WP NO.11082 OF 2016

¶40

petitioners and Smt. A.R. Sharadamba, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent-State.

¶41

Sri. M.T. Nanaiah, learned Senior Counsel appearing for petitioners invited the attention of Court to the Gazette Notification dated 13^th January, 2015 (Annexure-A), whereby the Government has issued notification to amend Section 8 of the Act and contended that in terms of the said amendment to the Act, the Government has issued Notification dated 09^th March, 2015, whereby exemption was given for the Mango trees. Thereafter the said Notification dated 09^th March, 2015 was withdrawn by another Notification dated 25^th April, 2015 (Annexure-C). He further contended that the impugned order passed by the respondent-Authorities is contrary to the law as the Mango trees have been cut and removed from the alienated Bane land, whereby the Coffee plantation has been raised by the petitioners for the purpose of shade. Therefore, he sought for interference of this Court.

¶42

Per contra, Smt. A.R. Sharadamba, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent-State

¶43

¶44

WP NO.11082 OF 2016

¶45

contended that the petitioners have not produced any relevant documents to show that the land in question is alienated Bane land; and unless the petitioners produce the relevant documents to establish their right over the land in question, petitioners are not entitled for the relief sought for in this writ petition.

¶46

In the light of submission made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, the petitioners have stated that the petitioners are the owners of land bearing Survey No.74/1 and 74/3 of Singathur village. The petitioners have sought for exemption in terms of the Notification issued by the Government for transportation of Mango logs grown in the Coffee plantation in the aforementioned land. In the light of submission made by learned Additional Government Advocate that the petitioners have to establish that the land in question is the alienated Bane land, I have carefully considered the internal correspondence letter dated 04^th September, 2015 by the respondent-Authorities, whereby it is clearly stated that the land in question is Coffee plantation land and is the alienated Bane land. However, the respondent-Authorities have extended

¶47

¶48

WP NO.11082 OF 2016

¶49

the conditions in respect of transportation of Mango logs by the

¶50

petitioners. In that view of the matter, taking into consideration the internal correspondence between the respondents dated 04^th September, 2015 and 25^th July, 2016 produced by the petitioners as additional documents to establish that the petitioners are in possession of the Jama Bane dry land and also in cultivation of land, I am of the view that, the conclusion arrived by the respondent-Authorities at Annexures ‘E1’ and ‘E2’ is liable to be set-aside and the matter is to be remanded to the respondent No.2 to take decision in the matter afresh. However, the petitioners herein are permitted to make available the documents produced before this Court, referred to above, to respondent-Authorities through a representation and in the event, if the respondentAuthorities, after considering the same and if any documents are required for the purpose of granting licence to the petitioners to transport Mango trees, take decision in the matter after affording opportunity to the petitioners. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶51

¶52

WP NO.11082 OF 2016

¶53

O R D E R

¶54

(i) Writ petition is allowed;

¶55

(ii) Order dated 12^th February, 2016 produced at Annexures ‘E1’ and ‘E2’ is set-aside and matter is remanded to the respondent No.2 with a direction to the respondent No.2 to take decision afresh, after affording an opportunity to the petitioners and also considering relevant documents produced by petitioners before this Court;

¶56

(iii) In order to avoid further delay in the matter, in the event, if the petitioners furnish the relevant documents to establish their right over the land in question with relevant documents through representation within four weeks from today, the respondent No.2 shall consider the same within two months from the date of receipt of such representation and communicate the outcome of the same to petitioners, forthwith.

¶57

SD/JUDGE

¶58

ARK

Sri. P a Basheer v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. P a Basheer v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri R Shankarappa Vs the State of Karnataka by Its Secretary

A. Krishnappa Vs M.D. Narayanaswamy

M B Shivanna Vs the Tender Inviting Committee

Sri. Suryanarayana Rao M Vs the Joint Registrar of

Sri. Venkatalaxmi Transports Vs the Managing Director

Basavanneppa Kabadagi Vs the State of Karnataka