IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.24990 OF 2018 (GM-FOR) BETWEEN:
VEERESH.K.R, S/O.REVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST AND TIMBER BUSINESS, R/AT UPPARAKERI, KUMSI VILLAGE-577 201, SHIVAMOGGA TALUK AND DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.RAJENDRA.S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, SHIVAMOGGA CIRCLE AND TREE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, SHIVAMOGGA CIRCLE, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.
2. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, SHIVAMOGGA DIVISION, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.
3. ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, AYANURU SUB-DIVISION, SHIVAMOGGA-577 201.
4. RANGE FOREST OFFICER, AYANURU RANGE, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 201.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIJAY KUMAR.A.PATIL, AGA FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 15.02.2018 PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-J CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 06.02.2016 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT IN DIRECTING TO RELEASE THE SEIZED TEAK LOGS 41=4.723 M3 AND 61 BILLETS AFTER COLLECTING THE VALUE OF THE SAME FIXED AT RS.3,06,995/- AND PENALTY OF RS.80,000/- PRODUCED AS PER ANNEXURE-H TO THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri. Rajendra S, learned counsel for Sri.S.V.Prakash, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Vijay Kumar A. Patil, leaned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the orders dated 06.02.2016 and 15.02.2018 passed by respondent Nos.2 and 1 respectively. By order dated 06.02.2016, respondent No.2 has directed to release the teak logs after collecting the value of the same which has been fixed at `3,06,995/- and penalty of `80,000/- as the tress were cut without obtaining any permission which is violation of Section 8 of the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for short). The aforesaid order has been upheld in appeal by the Appellate Court by an order dated 15.02.2018.
3. The facts giving raise to filing of this petition briefly stated are that the petitioner on 15.10.2004 made an application before respondent No.4 seeking the permission to fell the trees.
Thereupon, respondent No.4 directed the Forest Conservator to inspect the spot and to submit the report. When the application submitted by the petitioner was being processed by the Forest Authorities, 10 teak trees in Sy.No.115/1P1 were fell down. Thereupon Forest Officials registered a case in FOC No.18/2012-13 for felling down the trees without obtaining prior permission. Petitioner filed an application to release the trees which were cut in his favour. On the basis of compromise decree passed by Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Shimogga, respondent No.3 submitted a report to respondent No.2 in which a recommendation was made to release the seized trees to the Khatedar of the land by collecting the penalty for having cut the trees without seeking any permission. Thereafter, by an order dated 06.02.2016, respondent No.2 determined the price of cut trees at `3,06,995/- and imposed penalty at `80,000/- for violation of Section 8 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 14 of the Act. The aforesaid order was upheld in an appeal.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not cut the trees and the price of the trees be reduced by this Court.
5. On the other hand, Sri.Vijay Kumar A Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the tree Officer under Section 21 of the Act has the power to compound the offence on payment of the amount which may be determined by him. It is further submitted that concurrent finding has been recorded with regard to the number of the trees which have been fell down illegally in contravention with Section 8 of the Act and no case for interference with concurrent finding of fact has been made out in the petition in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
6. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in the case of ‘B.M.RANJI CARIAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA’, ‘1993 SCC ONLINE KAR 208’.
7. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
8. It is not in dispute that the trees have been cut in violation of the provisions of Section 8 of the Act without obtaining any permission. In other words trees have been cut illegally. Section 21 of the Act empowers the Tree Officer to release any property seized or liable to confiscation on payment of value of trees, as estimated by such officer. In other words, the value of the trees has to be estimated by the Tree officer. The Tree Officer while passing the order dated 06.02.2016 has determined the value of the trees of `3,06,995/- and imposed penalty of `80,000/- and has directed release of the trees in favour of the petitioner. Aforesaid order has been upheld in appeal by the Appellate Authority. From the concurrent findings with regard to the value of the trees recorded under the provisions of the Act, aforesaid finding of fact by no stretch of imagination can be said to be perverse. No case for interference in exercise of powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is made out.
In the result, I do not find any merit in the petition and the same is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE GH