IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO.31722 OF 2011 (GM-FOR) BETWEEN:
PALAKANDA C. BOPANNA AGED 42 YEARS S/O LATE CARIAPPA CHICKPET, VIRAJPET TOWN KODAGU DISTRICT BY HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER MRS. SOWMYA SURESH AGED 37 YEARS W/O MR. SURESH GOWRI TANK VIRAJPET TOWN ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. N.RAVINDRANATH KAMATH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS VIRAJPET DIVISION, VIRAJPET KODAGU DISTRICT.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER KODAGU DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI. SHIVAPRABHU S. HIREMATH, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26.04.2011 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A FOR THE PAYMENT OF RS.13.48.831/- BEING THE 48% OF THE ROSEWOOD VALUE OF THE TIMEBR TRANSPORTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE RESPONDENT AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE SUM OF RS.30,28,600/- TO THE PETITIONER BEING THE VALUE OF 72 LOGS OF ROSEWOOD TIMBER FROM 20.06.2011.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner claims to be the owner of land bearing sy.No.66/3 of Kottalli Village, Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District and states that there were certain rosewood trees which were grown in his land. The petitioner approached respondent No.1 seeking permission to cut the rosewood trees, which was so granted on 18.09.2010. In pursuance thereof, rosewood trees were cut into 72 logs and transported to the Forest depot. Subsequently, the said logs were auctioned, fetching an account of Rs.30,28,000/-. However, respondent No.1 holding that the land belonging to the petitioner was unredeemed land, after deducting 10% on account of auction cost, approved payment of 45% of the balance amount viz., 13,48,831/- to the petitioner.
The petitioner aggrieved by the said order dated 26.04.2011 has filed the present petition contending that the land is redeemed land and not unredeemed land as stated by respondent No.1 in his order dated 26.4.2011.
2. Heard the counsels for the parties.
3. During the course of argument learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by respondent No.1 dated 26.4.2011 is contrary to the RTC produced by the petitioner at Annexure-D dated 7.6.2011 wherein under column 6 relating to Patta, it is categorically stated that it is a ‘redeemed sagu land’. He states that respondent No.1 has not applied his mind to the facts of the matter and has not considered it in the right perspective. Hence, he submits that the matter may be remanded for fresh consideration by respondent No.1 with regard to the status of the land as to whether it is redeemed land or unredeemed land, for the purpose of calculation of the amounts payable to the petitioner.
4. Counsel for the respondent fairly submits that the matter could be so remanded, but, however, submits that the petitioner has to produce necessary documents in support of his contention that the land is redeemed land.
5. Taking into consideration the above submission, the matter is remanded to respondent No.1 for fresh consideration in accordance with applicable law to determine eligibility of the petitioner and the amount payable to the petitioner, as expeditiously as possible.
The petition is accordingly allowed.
Sd/- JUDGE ln