Allowed

B C Srinivas v. Deputy Conservator of Forest

Karnataka HC11 Dec 2023WP/23639/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought mandamus to release seized timber logs after an FIR was quashed. Court allowed the petition in part, directing respondents to consider pending representations and upcoming fresh submissions while observing that an adverse order requires a hearing before being passed.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed in-part; direction to consider representations and pass orders; liberty to file further representation within two weeks; hearing required for adverse orders.

B C Srinivas Vs Deputy Conservator of Forest — Karnataka HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:44997 WP No. 23639 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶7

WRIT PETITION No.23639 OF 2022 (GM-FOR)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

B. C. SRINIVAS, S/O CHAKRAPANI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O BARAGI VILLAGE, SORABA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT- 577429.

¶10

Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S

¶11

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶12

K.G. CHANDRASHEKHAR BHAT, S/O GANAPATHI BHAT, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/O KYASNOOR VILLAGE, ULAVI HOBI, NISRANI POST, SORABA TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 577429.

¶13

(BY SRI SYED AKBAR PASHA., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

…PETITIONERS

¶16

DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, SAGAR FOREST DIVISION, SAGAR, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 577430.

¶17

ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, SORABA RANGE, SORABA, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 577429.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2023:KHC:44997 WP No. 23639 of 2022

¶20

RANGE FOREST OFFICER, SORABA RANGE, SORABA, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT 577429.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI BASAVARAJ GODACHI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO RELEASE THE TIMBER/ WOODEN LOGS SEIZED IN FOC No.51/14-15 DATED 2.11.2014, WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-E1 TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶24

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

¶25

ORDER

¶26

This petition seeking mandamus to the respondents to release the timer/wooden logs seized in FOC No.51/2014-15 dated 02.11.2014.

¶27

The petitioners are owners of land bearing Survey Nos.14 and 88 of Kyasanoor Village, Soraba Taluk, Shivamogga District. The petitioners filed applications before the respondents seeking permission to cut and remove the trees grown in his land. Respondent No.1 by order dated 08.07.2014 permitted the petitioners to cut and remove the trees. The Grama Panchayat, Nisarani and Taluk Panchayat, Soraba issued 'No Objection' to cut and remove the trees. Similar report has

¶28

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:44997 WP No. 23639 of 2022

¶29

also been submitted by the Assistant Commissioner stating that Sy.No.14 of Kyasanoor Village is not a revenue land and petitioners can be granted permission.

¶30

The petitioners submit that despite permission being granted by the respondents authorities, respondent No.3 has registered FIR in Crime No.521/2014 [Forest Offence Case] alleging that the petitioners have illegally cut down Sagvani, Mango, Nandi and other varieties of 31 trees in Sy.No.88 of Kyasanoor Village and committed offence under various provisions of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963.

¶31

The FIR registered against the petitioners has been quashed by this Court in Crl.P.No.2885/2021, dated 07.06.2022. It is further submitted that joint survey has been conducted by the Revenue Department and Forest Department and it is found that the cut down trees are from Sy.No.14 and same is not a forest land and is shown in the survey sketch annexed as Annexures G and H.

¶32

In view of the above factual aspects, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the entire basis of illegality in cutting of trees is not available for the respondents to continue

¶33

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:44997 WP No. 23639 of 2022

¶34

to retain the seized Timber. Hence, requests for direction to release the same.

¶35

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that merely because FIR has been quashed on technical grounds, petitioners are not entitled for release of seized Timber and prays for dismissal of writ petition.

¶36

The request made by the petitioners at Annexures-J, J1 and J2 subsequent to quashing of the FIR is pending consideration with the respondents. In view of the changed circumstances, it is appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the representation at Annexures-J, J1 and J2 in accordance with law.

¶37

Hence the following order:

¶38

i) Writ Petition is allowed in-part.

¶39

ii) The respondents are directed to consider the representations at Annexure J, J1 and J2 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶40

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:44997 WP No. 23639 of 2022

¶41

Needless to observe that, if order adverse to petitioners is to be passed an opportunity of hearing be provided to them.

¶42

iii) The petitioners are at liberty to file additional representation along with supporting documents, if required. The pending representations and fresh representation, if filed within a period of two weeks from the date of this order, the same shall be considered by the respondents within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. While considering the representations, the respondents shall consider Annexures-G and H.

¶43

iv) No order as to costs.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39

B C Srinivas v. Deputy Conservator of Forest

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B C Srinivas v. Deputy Conservator of Forest

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

M/S Sangamesha Denim Point Vs Union of India

Sri. M G Vijaya Kumar Vs the Deputy Commissioner

P v Prakash Vs Smt Drakshayanamma

M/S Sri Maruthi Builders Engineers and Contractors Vs South Western Railways

Sri Tirumalesh Desai Vs Primary Agricultural Co. Operative Society Ltd.

S Chidananda Vs State of Karnataka