K.R. Chandrashekhar vs Deputy Conservator of Forests, Deputy Commissioner and Government of Karnataka

A.S. Bopanna, J.—The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 11.10.2012 impugned at Annexure-H to the petition. The petitioner has also assailed the communication dated 26.02.1998 at Annexure-D to the petition. The petitioner who is an agriculturist was granted land under the order dated 28.02.1985 to the extent of 3 acres 30 guntas in Sy. No. 196 of Doddamagarvalli village and a further extent of 10 acres in the same survey number was granted to the brother of the petitioner on 07.12.1988. The said land was for the purpose of coffee plantation. In that view, the tree growth which would hinder coffee plantation and shade lapping was required to be done. It is in that circumstance, the petitioner had made a request for felling permission. As required, the Deputy Commissioner was to convey the opinion and the only question that was required to be noticed was with regard to reservation of the trees made at the time of grant and also the value of the tree growth that had been collected and in that view whether any additional value was required to be paid.

In an earlier instance, when the demand had been made, the petitioner was before this Court in W.P. No. 11048/1998 disposed of on 12.09.1999. Pending consideration of the petition since the tree growth was to be removed, the amount of Rs. 5,32,895/- which was demanded from the petitioner was ordered to be deposited which was subject to result of the petition. Since the tree growth was removed, the petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make appropriate request regarding the said amount. The petitioner was once again forced to come before this Court in W.P. No. 22967/2001 which was disposed of on 08.03.2007. While considering the issue relating to valuation of the trees vis-�-vis the value that was paid at the time of the grant and the additional value if any to be paid, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the matter requires reconsideration by the authorities after providing opportunity to the petitioner and in that circumstance had remanded the matter. The petitioner however contending that all materials were available before this Court and the decision could have been taken by this Court itself and being aggrieved by the remand made, had preferred an appeal in W.A. No. 791/2007. The Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the appeal on 20.06.2012 after referring to the conditions of grant had observed that the amount paid was tentative and there is nothing to show that the amount paid by the appellant was based on the actual valuation of the standing trees before issuance of the Saguvali Chit. Though having made the said observation, the remand as made by the learned Single Judge was not interfered and was left open for reconsideration. As such, the matter was reconsidered by the authority by the impugned order dated 11.10.2012.

The respondents have filed their objection statement and have sought to justify the order impugned at Annexure-H and also the earlier orders that had been passed. It is their contention that the value of the trees which had been collected at the time of the grant was only tentative and in such circumstance, the valuation was to be subsequently made when felling permission was sought. The additional value thereof has been assessed and the amount of Rs. 5,32,896.99 demanded was justified.

Learned Government Advocate would also refer to the observations made by the Hon''ble Division Bench where in fact the contention put forth by the respondents is said to have been upheld by the Hon''ble Division Bench according to the learned Government Advocate. In such circumstance, it is contended that the authority while passing the impugned order has referred to the observations of the Hon''ble Division Bench and has thereafter come to the conclusion. In that view, when the value paid earlier was tentative and also since the Deputy Commissioner had made certain observations with regard to the delay in payment of the amount at the first instance, the order is justified.

In the light of the above, on all other aspects it appears to be there being no dispute except with regard to the appropriate value of the trees that was required to be assessed at the time of grant and as to whether any difference in value is to be collected at this stage. By this, what is to be noticed is the fact that the grant was made in favour of the petitioner and his brother in respect of two extents and valuation of the trees had been made at the time of grant and the value which is indicated in the grant order was also paid by the petitioner is not in dispute. The only question for consideration is as to whether the respondents would be justified in seeking for the additional value by contending that at the time of grant the valuation in respect of the very same trees was tentative.

In this regard, since reference has been made to the observations as made by the Hon''ble Division Bench in W.A. No. 791/2007 dated 20.06.2012, it will have to be noticed as to whether such observation would be conclusive so as to bind all the parties concerned. In order to decide this aspect at the outset, what is necessary to be noticed is that the Hon''ble Division Bench was of the view that as per the grant certificate, certain conditions were imposed. The condition as imposed in the document which was available at Annexure-R2 in the appeal proceedings has been extracted and noticed. The condition also provided for the difference of the value of the trees can be re-fixed. On taking note of the conditions, the observation made by the Hon''ble Division Bench in para 9 reads as hereunder:

From this, it is clear that what was paid by the appellant and his brother was not towards the actual standing trees, it was only a tentative and there is nothing to show that the amount paid by the appellant was towards the actual value of the standing trees before issuance of the saguvali chit.

A perusal of the extracted portion of the order would indicate that it is in the absence of any document to show that the actual value of the standing trees had been assessed before issuance of Saguvali Chit, the conclusion was that the same would have to be considered as tentative. Even after such observation since the Hon''ble Division Bench has allowed the remand order made by the learned Single Judge to remain in force would only mean that based on the said observations, if there was any other document to indicate that the value had been properly assessed at the time of grant and the same had been collected, that was an aspect which was required to be noticed by the competent authority while passing the order dated 11.1.0.2012 at Annexure-H.

In that light, if the impugned order dated-11.10.2012 at Annexure-H is perused, a major portion of the order has been devoted to extract the portion of the provisions in Rule 11 of the Land Grant Rules and also the portion of the order passed in W.A. No. 791/2007. Apart from the fact that the document relied on by the petitioner has not been considered, there is no conclusion with regard to the manner in which the valuation had been made at the first instance. Therefore, in that circumstance, taking note of the value that has been indicated in Annexure-C dated 17.12.1988, when the brother of the petitioner had been granted the said land and the value of the trees is indicated therein at Rs. 24,670/- which undisputedly has been paid by the, petitioner, what is necessary to be further noticed is as to whether such valuation was a tentative valuation or as to whether a procedure contemplated was followed and the valuation was made.

In this regard, the document at Annexure-A is relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner. There is no dispute with regard to the validity of the said document and the same being available in the records of the respondents. The contention however put forth by the learned Government Advocate is that at the bottom of the said valuation it has been indicated that the valuation has been made approximately and not the actual value. In order to consider this aspect of the matter, a detailed perusal of Annexure-A would indicate that different types of trees which were available in the land has been taken into consideration and the number of trees was also taken note of has been listed methodically. Insofar as the trees, the girth of the trees by measurement has been taken and the firewood trees has been taken into consideration separately. On taking note of the actual standing trees on the land, the sandalwood trees and the rosewood trees listed thereof has been reserved to the Government. Insofar as the other trees which have been listed therein, the girth of the trees with actual measurement has been taken into consideration and the rate at which the valuation is to be made is also indicated and the total valuation in respect of each of the variety of trees has been indicated. Thereafter, the total value of Rs. 24,650.50 has been arrived at in respect of all the trees. The said figure is the very same figure which is indicated in the order dated 17.12.1988 at Annexure-C. Therefore, when such procedure has been followed, merely indicating at the bottom that it is the approximate value cannot lead to a different conclusion when the girth as well as the rate at which the value has been fixed is taken into consideration.

In such circumstance, when at the time of the grant, the valuation has been appropriately made and the value thereof has been paid by the grantee and when no permission is now sought in respect of the trees which had been reserved to the Government, the question of paying any additional compensation at this juncture-would not arise. Therefore, even if the observation of the Hon''ble Division Bench is kept in view and in the circumstance where I have noticed that a document is available to indicate the manner in which the valuation was made, notwithstanding the condition of the grant enabling collection of the difference value, the said clause cannot be operated in the present facts and circumstance of the case where the valuation had been properly made. Therefore, in such circumstance, the conclusion reached by the competent authority by the impugned order dated 11.10.2012 at Annexure-H is not justified and the same is accordingly quashed. Since it is already noticed that the amount had been deposited by the petitioner earlier in view of the interim orders without prejudice, the question of quashing the communication at Annexure-D though would not arise at this juncture, an appropriate direction requires to be issued to the respondents to refund the amount which had been deposited by the petitioner. It is submitted that at the time of deposit, this Court had directed the amount to be kept in a fixed deposit. Since the petitioner is now entitled to the said amount, he would also be entitled to the interest accrued thereof. Hence, the respondents are directed to refund a sum of Rs. 5,32,895/- deposited by the petitioner with interest accrued thereon within a period of two months from the date of furnishing a copy of this order.

In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.