K. S. PUTTASWAMY, J. ( 1 ) LAND bearing Sy. No. 17 of nagarajahosahalli village, Munganahalli Hobli, chintamani Taluk is Government land. On an application made by the petitioner who is now dead and is represented by his legal representatives, the Tahsildar, Chintamani Taluk by his order dt. 8-2-1967 (Ex.-A) accorded him temporary permission to plant trees on the said land. The order made by the Tahsildar reads thus: ( 2 ) IN pursuance of this order, the petitioner planted several trees on the land which now turns out to measure 3 acres 27 guntas. 2. In due course the Dy Commissioner, Kolar (hereinafter referred to as the dc) by his order No. MSC. CR. 12376-77 dt. 27-4-1977 (Ex.-C) ratified the action of the Tahsildar and accorded his permission for the trees already planted to the petitioner and the trees if any to be planted by him on the terms and conditions stipulated in that order. On the basis of this order of the DC, the Tahsildar issued a notice on 12-5-1977 to the petitioner calling upon him to pay a sum of rs. 1870 as ground rent on the trees planted thereto. ( 3 ) AGAINST this order of the DC, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeal No. 366 of 1977 LR confining his challenge only to the imposition of ground rent made in that order. On 19-7-1978 the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal and has affirmed the order of the DC and the consequent demand notice issued by the Tahsildar (Ex-D ). ( 4 ) IN this petition under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order of the tribunal, the order of the DC and the consequent demand notice issued by tahsildar. ( 5 ) BEFORE the authorities as also before this Court, the petitioner had not laid claim either to the land or the trees except to the extent of enjoying the usufructs of the trees. But, what is disputed by him is that he is not liable to pay ground rent stipulated in clause (2) of the terms and conditions of the order of the DC on the trees planted by him before the date of that order. But, what is disputed by him is that he is not liable to pay ground rent stipulated in clause (2) of the terms and conditions of the order of the DC on the trees planted by him before the date of that order. In other words he does not dispute his liability to pay ground rent only on trees planted after the DC made his order and not before that. ( 6 ) SRI. C. B. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the petitioner, strenuously contends that on the trees planted before the DC made his order, it was not open to levy ground rent and such ground rent can be levied and collected only on trees to be planted in pursuance of the order and the DC has committed a manifest error of law apparent on the face of the record. ( 7 ) SRI L. M. Pandurangaswamy, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents sought to justify the impugned orders. ( 8 ) R. 102 of the Karnataka Land revenue Rules, framed under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) confers power to grant permission to plant trees on certain types of lands. Evidently, the Tahsildar and the DC toad granted permission to the petitioner to plant trees in exercise of the powers conferred on them by R. 102 of the Rules. ( 9 ) ON 6-9-1974 R. 102 A was introduced by Government regulating the planting of trees by private persons on Government lands, the terms and conditions on which such permission should be accorded. Evidently the order made by the DC on 23-4-1977 can only be traced to R. 102 A of the rules. ( 10 ) R. 102 A (1) of the Rules provides for recovery of ground rent on trees that are planted in pursuance of an order made by the authorities. As noticed earlier, the petitioner does not dispute his liability to pay ground rent, on trees, if any planted by him after the DC made his order. But, what he disputes is that on trees that were planted before the DC made his order, R. 102-A (2) applies and not r. 102-A (1 ). ( 11 ) R. 102 A (1) provides for imposition of ground rent on trees, to be planted and not on trees if any already planted before the authority makes an order. But, what he disputes is that on trees that were planted before the DC made his order, R. 102-A (2) applies and not r. 102-A (1 ). ( 11 ) R. 102 A (1) provides for imposition of ground rent on trees, to be planted and not on trees if any already planted before the authority makes an order. R. 102 A does not authorise imposition of ground rent on trees earlier planted, but confers such power on trees to be planted by a person after the order is made either under R. 102 or 102-A of the rules. Proviso to sub-rule (2) of R. 102 (A) puts the matter beyond doubt and provides for imposition of ground rent on trees to be planted in pursuance of an order to be made by the authority. From this it follows that it was not open to the DC to have directed the petitioner to pay ground rent on the trees planted by him before he made his order and the Tribunal in not correcting this obvious error has committed a manifest error of law apparent on the face of the record. ( 12 ) WHETHER the petitioner has planted any trees after the DC made his order and if so, the ground rent payable thereon has not been examined and decided by the authorities. Unfortunately, the authorities have proceeded to examine the matter as if the petitioner was liable to pay ground rent on the trees, planted by him before the DC made his order, which i have held impermissible. In this view, it is necessary to quash the impugned orders to the extent they are in challenge and direct the authorities to redetermine the matter in accordance with law and issue a fresh demand notice on the tree planted pursuant to the order made by the DC. ( 13 ) IN the light of my above discussion, I make the following orders and directions :- (1) I quash the order of the tribunal in its entirety: (2) I quash the order of the DC only to the extent it imposes ground rent on trees planted by the petitioner before he made his order and the consequent demand notice (ex-hibit-B) issued by the Tahsildar; (3) I further diretct the DC and his subordinates to redetermine the amounts payable by the petitioner and recover them in accordance with law. ( 14 ) WRIT petition is disposed of in the above terms. But, in the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs. --- *** --- .