( 1 ) WHETHER a holder of 'bane land' in Coorg Dist has a right to redeem the tree growth on payment of 50% of its value, is the only question for determination in this petition under Art. 226 of the Constn. ( 2 ) THE events leading up to the petition are these: The second petitioner is the holder of Bans lands bearing Sy. Nos. 40/1 and 40/2 in mukkodlu vilage, Mercara and, Coorg Dist. The first petitioner has purchased the free growth therein. On 23rd April 1978, they made an application tq the Divl Forest Offlcer-resipcndent before me for permission to cut and remove the said trees. On 30th April 1973, they mads an initial deposit of rs. 100 as required under the relevant rules then existing. On 7th Jan 1974, they again deposited a sum of Rs. 12,900 being the rough estimate of 50% value of timber. After the deposit, the respondent directed the petitioners co fell the enumerated trses and submit the final bill. Pursuant to the direction, the Range Forest Officer, Timber Valuation, Mercara, in his letter dt. 8th Jan 1974, permitted the petitioners to fell the enumerated trees. Accordingly, the trees were cut and it was followed by the determination of actual value of timber by the Forest Officials. On 25th May 1974, the respondent called upon the petitioners to make good th deficit in 50% valus Af the timber as a condition precedent for issuing permits for the removal of timber from the said lands. The petitioners accordingly paid the balance on 26th March 1974. Thereupon, the respondent directed the range Forest Officer to release the timber and also the property mark. When the transporting of timber was in progress, the respondent directed the petitioners to stop further operations. On 25th May 1974, the petitoners were called upon to pay the full value of timber as a condition for its redemption. The said letter reads thus :"to Sri T. V. Ramaraju Naidu, Timber Merhcant, Sunticoppa sub: Redemption of timber in Bane land of Coorg Dist. Ref: This Office No. TVN (M) 33/73-74 dt. 26-3-1974, with reference to your application dt. 13-5-1974 I have to inform you that you have paid only 50% value of timber lying in the land bearing sy. Nos. 40/1 and 40 2 of Mukkodlu village as per Rule 337 of KFR. 1969 then existing. Ref: This Office No. TVN (M) 33/73-74 dt. 26-3-1974, with reference to your application dt. 13-5-1974 I have to inform you that you have paid only 50% value of timber lying in the land bearing sy. Nos. 40/1 and 40 2 of Mukkodlu village as per Rule 337 of KFR. 1969 then existing. Now you are requested to pay another 50% value (which would mean paying of full value) for the release, issue of permits for the removal of materials from the above said land. Yours faithfully, sd/. Divl forest Officer, Mercara. " ( 3 ) CHALLENGING the validity of the above demand, the petitioners have moved this Court with an application under Art. 226 of the Constn. ( 4 ) MR. Sundaraswamy, lerned Counsel for the petitioners urgad that the petitioners have a vested right to redeem the trees on the Bane lands on payment of 50% value of the timber under thei Coorg Land and Rervenue regulation (I of 1899) and the Rules framed thereunder, which right according to him has been saved by Section. 202 (1) (b) of the Karnataka land Revenue Act, 1964, which repealed the Coorg Land and Revenue regulation. He also urged that by 3. 75 (1) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, an absolute right was conferred on the petitioners in respect of the trees on the Bane lands and the Govt have no right even to demand 50% of its value. ( 5 ) THE second contention, in my opinion, need not be examined in this petition in view of the pleadings and prayer made, by the petitioners. The petitioners are aggrieved by the demand of the entire value of timber. They have willingly paid to the respondent 50% of its value before approaching this Court. I therefore, express no opinion on the second contention. ( 6 ) IN order to appreciate the first contention, it is necessary to refer to the provisions of the Coorg Land and Revenue Regulation (1 of 1899) and the Rules framed thereunder. There is no exact definition of the 'bane' land in the said Regulation. But the following passage from the decision of the Supreme Court in state of Mysore v. Thamnuiah, AIR 1974 SC 1375 , 1377. would give us the historical background of the 'bane' lands:" 7. There is no exact definition of the 'bane' land in the said Regulation. But the following passage from the decision of the Supreme Court in state of Mysore v. Thamnuiah, AIR 1974 SC 1375 , 1377. would give us the historical background of the 'bane' lands:" 7. The term 'bane land' is not defined in the Coorg Land and revenue Regulation, 1899 but it would appear from the Explanation contained in Chap. V of the Coorg Settlement Report, 1910 that a considerable area of forest lands which was deemed necessary for grazing and leaf manure and for providing firewood timber for agricultural purposes was allotted by the Rajas for each 'warg', Each rice-cultivated valley known as 'kovu' was divided into plots called Wargs and the forest land allotted for the use of each Warg came to be known as 'bane land'. Ordinarily, the Bane land was not intended to be brought under cultivation. " ( 7 ) THE holder or the occupant of the 'bane land' has certain rights in the tree growth in addition to his right to enjoy the personal usufruct of trees. It is evident by the provisions of Rule 97 in Part II of Chap. III of the Regulation. The said Rule provides : ( 8 ) TO sum up the above rules confer a right on the holder off Bane land to redeem the trees standing on such Bane land. He may apply to the concerned Forest Officials accompanied, by necessary initial deposit with documents showing that the Bane land is in his possession and enjoyment. The application may be rejected in writing. If it is not rejected, the applicant may be perorated to extract the timber subject to, the provisions of the above rules, or the Forest Department may itself undertake the extraction in the event of which the applicant shall sign a declaration that he will abide, by the conditions specified under the rules. In the latter case, the applicant has to bear all the costs of extraction and transport of timber and other incidental charges . Out of the sale proceeds, after deducting the dues of the Govt, half of the balance shall be paid to the applicant, and the other half shall be credited to Govt. In the latter case, the applicant has to bear all the costs of extraction and transport of timber and other incidental charges . Out of the sale proceeds, after deducting the dues of the Govt, half of the balance shall be paid to the applicant, and the other half shall be credited to Govt. In case where the applicant is permitted to extract and transport timber, it goes without saying that he has to pay to the Govt 50% of the value of timber along with other incidental charges. This is undoubtedly a right to property guaranteed to the holders of Bane lands. Mr. Chandrakantharaj Urs, learned High Court govt Advocate, did not dispute that right, but he urged that the said right cannot be enforced since the Coorg Regulatian along with the above, rules was repealed on 1-4-1964 on coming into force of the Karnataka Land revenue Act, 1964. ( 9 ) THE contention, in my view, overlooks the repeal and savings provisions in the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. Sec. 202 of the Karnataka land Revenue Act provides : Repeal and Savings,- (1) The enactments specified in the Schedule, and any other law corresponding to this Act are hereby repealed: provided that subject to the provisions of this Act, the repeal shall not affect- (a) the previous operation of any such enactment or law or anything duly dome or suffered thereunder; (b) any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued or incurred under such enactment or law; * * * * * it is clear from the, above, provisions that the repeal of the Coorg Regulation did not affect the right or privilege acquired thereunder by the holders of Bane lands. In other words the, exisiting right erf tha petitioners to redeem the tree growth on payment of 50% value of timber has been thus expressly saved by Sec. 202 (1) (b) of the, Karnataka Land Revenue Act. That right, in my view, could at any time be enforced against the State govt. The respondent, therefore, cannot demand from the petitioners the full value of timber as a condition for its redemption. ( 10 ) I shall now proceed to consider whether the repeal of Rule 137 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, has affected the said rights of the petitioners. Rule 137 was framed under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and it was repealed on 15-1-1974. ( 10 ) I shall now proceed to consider whether the repeal of Rule 137 of the Karnataka Forest Rules, has affected the said rights of the petitioners. Rule 137 was framed under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 and it was repealed on 15-1-1974. It is not necessry to set out herein tha said rule, as its provisions were in pan materiel with that of Rule 97 (IB) in Part II of chap. III of the Coorg Land and Revenue Regulation. Rule 137 was in force when the petitioners made the application for redeeming the tree growth on their Bane lands. After that rule was repealed the respondent made the impugned demand stating that the petitioners have paid only 50% value of the timber as per Rula 137 then existing, and since the rule was repealed, they have to pay the full value of timber. Evidently, the respondent was under the mistaken impression that the petitioners have lost their right to extract timber on payment of 50% of its value On the repeal of Rule 137 of the Karnataka Forest Rules. ( 11 ) IT seems to me that the above decision is clearly untenable. Rule 137 came and disappeared like an uninvited guest. While it was brought into force, it did not confer any fresh right on the holders of Bano lanos. Its repeal, therefore, made little difference on their existing right which has been saved by S. 202 (1) (b) of the Karnataka Land Revenue act, 1964. I have therefore no hesitation in holding that the impugned demand was without authority of law. ( 12 ) IN the view that I have taken, it is unnecessary to consider the other contentions urged by Counsel on both sides. ( 13 ) IN the result, the rule is made absolute. A writ of mandamus shall issue against the respondent to Eorbear from enforcing the demand under Ext. 'e' dt. 25th May 1974 and to issue permits to the petitioners for the transportation of timber from their Bane lands. ( 14 ) BY the interim order made by this Court, the petitioners were directed to furnish Bank guarantee against the disputed demand made by the respondent. Since the petitioners have succeeded in this petition, the bank guarantee furnished by them, shall stand cancelled. ( 15 ) IN the circumstances I make no order as to costs. --- *** --- .