MURALIDHER RAO, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER is a Forest Contractor. By registered deed executed in 1973, petitioner claims to have purchased 'malki' in Sy. No. 60 of Kadekal village. The land consisted of 32 Blocks and the 'malki' was the right to cut and remove the firewood and bamboo trees in all the 32 Blocks. On application for permission to cut and remove the 'malki 'the authorities in the Forest Department issued "maafi Passes" enabling the petitioner to cut and remove the firewood and Bamboo trees. The petitioner was to cut the Bamboo tree and convert them as 'chips' before they are removed from the Forest area. It appears that the authorities in the forest Department have been demanding seigniorage charges ; petitioner has paid the seigniorage charges; he contends that the demand and collection of these charges was illegal, as the land was a 'hiduvali' land and he had paid consideration to the hidavalidar in 1973. The prayer of the petitioner is that Seigniorage charges collected form him should be refunded, as it is an illegal collection. Petitioner claims refund of Rs. 24,661-07 and also prays that he may be permitted to remove the firewood. Bamboo and Bamboo chips without payment of seigniorage charges. This ineffect is the relief sought, as detailed in I. A. for amendment. ( 2 ) THE respondents have not filed statement of objections ; but Sri Abdul khader, HCGP, contended that the land is not a Hiduvali land ; it was granted to 32 Harijans under Darkhast Rules. Since the land had to be made fit for cultivation, petitioner was permitted to clear the forest produce on his paying seigniorage charges. Petitioner had voluntarily paid the amount demanded and had obtained Maafi Passes. The grantees or allottees had only right of cultivation and not to the trees on the land. Hence irrespective of the agreement between the allotees and the petitioner, the allotees not being owners could not transfer rights which did not exist in them. Their limited right of cultivation on the land, which is resumable by the Government, at any time does not create any right in them, much less, in the petitioner. He maintained that this is not a case of illegal collection or unjust enrichment ; petitioner cannot claim refund of the amount, voluntarily paid by him. Their limited right of cultivation on the land, which is resumable by the Government, at any time does not create any right in them, much less, in the petitioner. He maintained that this is not a case of illegal collection or unjust enrichment ; petitioner cannot claim refund of the amount, voluntarily paid by him. The Government Pleader has placed reliance on the records, which are made available to the Court. ( 3 ) THE points that arise for consideration are : (i) What is the nature of the land and whether the petitioner can claim right to the trees and Bamboos without payment of seigniorage charges, on the strength of agreement between him and his Vendors? (ii) Whether petitioner, having voluntarily made payments and enjoyed the benefits of forest produce, can be permitted to claim refund, on the allegation that it is an illegal payment? ( 4 ) MR. M. P. Eshwarappa, learned counsel for the petitioner, vehemently contended that the petitioner is not liable to pay any amount to the State ; he relied on Sections 75 and 79 of the land Revenue Act and the following rulings of this Court : (i) 1975 (1) Kar. L. J. page 372. (ii) 1983 (2) Kar. L. J. Short notes item 69 ; 'and (iii) 1972 (2) Kar. L. J. page 205. ( 5 ) RECORDS reveal that Sy. No. 60 of Kadekal village has been granted under the Darkhast Rules. It was a gopal land measuring 387. 36 acres. Out of this, an extent of 82 acres was granted to landless Harijans under Darkhast rules ; this fact is admitted by the petitioner in his representations dated 26-4-1976 addressed to D. F. O. Bhadravati and one dated 12th Jan. 1983 addressed to Dy. Conservator of Forests, Bhadravati. This fact gets support from Annexure-A filed by petitioner. The rights of such allottee stands concluded by decision of Supreme Court in Manchegowda v State (ILR Karnataka 1984 (2) p. 1), wherein it is observed:"17. The granted lands were not in the nature of properties acquired and held by the grantee in the sense of acquisition, or holding the property within the meaning of Art. 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution. The granted lands were not in the nature of properties acquired and held by the grantee in the sense of acquisition, or holding the property within the meaning of Art. 19 (1) (f) of the Constitution. It was the case of a grant by the owner of the land to the grantee for the possession and enjoyment of the granted lands by the grantees and the prohibition to transfer of such granted lands for the specified period was an essential term or condition on the basis of which grants made. " ( 6 ) IF the petitioner has paid consideration and has obtained Malki rights, as claimed by him, he gets no right in the eye of law nor can be plead equity. In the above ruling it was pointed out :"15. Transferees of granted lands with full knowledge of the legal position that the transfers made in their favour in contravention of the terms of the grant or any law, rule or regulation governing such grant are liable to be defeated in law, cannot and do not have in law or equity, a genuine or real grievance that their defeasible title in such granted lands so transferred, is, in fact being defeated and they are baing dispossessed of such lands from which they were in law liable for to be dispossessed by process of law. ""18. The transferees of the granted land from the original grantees acquired the lands improperly and illegally in contravention of the condition imposed on such transfers. Such transferees must have been aware and must in any event be deemed to have been aware of the condition regarding the prohibition on transfer and they cannot be considered to be a bonafide transferees for value. "in terms of the above observations, petitioner cannot be a bonafide transferee for value and he cannot plead equity. This being the nature of land, petitioner cannot assert that he has acquired "malki" rights. In view of this factual background petitioner cannot get any assistance from Section 75 of the Land revenue Act, which pertains to right of occupant of the land. This being the nature of land, petitioner cannot assert that he has acquired "malki" rights. In view of this factual background petitioner cannot get any assistance from Section 75 of the Land revenue Act, which pertains to right of occupant of the land. The word occupant is defined thus :"2 (20) "occupant" means a holder in actual possession of unalienated land other than the tenant : provided that where the holder in actual possession is a tenant, the landlord or superior landlord, as the case may be, shall be deemed to be the occupant; (Explanation : A ryotwari pattadar in the Madras Area and Bellary District, a pattadar or Shikmidar in the hyderabad Area and a holder or landholder in the Coorg District shall be deemed to be an occupant of such land for purposes of this Act.)" ( 7 ) THE allotees, under the Darkhast rules were not holding the land under any right of their own and as such they were not occupants, for purposes of section 75, Land Revenue Act. On the facts of this case. Sec. 78 would be applicable and petitioner would be liable to pay the value of trees, as the land continues to be the property of the Government. Sec. 79 or the Land Revenue act deals with cases where rightsf or trees are reserved. The vendors of the petitioner being allotees under the darkhast Rules, they have no right in the trees and they cannot claim any privilege, hence Sec. 79 has no application to the facts of this case. ( 8 ) IN the case reported in 1975 (1) kar. L. J. 372 (K. M. Basheer and Co. v State of Mysore), petitioners therein were owners, who ware in lawful possession, paying assessment to State Government and were held as 'occupants' under the Act. The said decision has no application to the facts of the case as the allotees are not occupants. ( 9 ) THE other decision cited by Sri eshwarappa, namely, State of Karnataka v. T. V. Ramaraju Naidu. (1975 (2) Kar. L. J. 205) has no relevance. There the Court was considering the rights of a Bane holder in Coorg. It was, however, held that the State continues to be the proprietor of soil and trees on the bane land. In recognising the limited right of Baneholder to cut or fell wood the court observed :"7. (1975 (2) Kar. L. J. 205) has no relevance. There the Court was considering the rights of a Bane holder in Coorg. It was, however, held that the State continues to be the proprietor of soil and trees on the bane land. In recognising the limited right of Baneholder to cut or fell wood the court observed :"7. BUT he will have no right to cut or fell wood or timber for sale or barter or for the use of any one but his own house-hold and servants. In case any wood or timber is disposed of in breach of this rule, the Government will be at liberty either to realise the full estimated value from the bane holder or to seize and detain the timber and sell it by auction. " ( 10 ) IN Assainar v. State of Karnataka (1983 (2) Kar. L. . J. Shortnotes, item 69) the Court was required to consider the continuity of Rules in Coorg after the coming into force of Land Revenue Act. The said decision is of no assistance. In this view of the matter, the department was justified in demanding the amount and amount so paid by the petitioner is liable to be refunded. ( 11 ) MR. Eshwarappa relied upon the letter dated 13-11-1973 (Annexure-D) written by the Secretary in the Agriculture and Forest Department to the chief Conservator of Forests. In spirit and intent it connotes an idea that the tree growth on lands, held as private property by individuals prior to 1st April 1964 are deemed to have been redeemed in favour of Occupant and the question of collecting the value does not arise. As held above, the land in question is not a private property of allotees and they are not occupants, therefore, the argument constructed on this letter has to be rejected. The lands are granted during 1961-62 and 1962-63 ; therefore, it being prior to the conning into force of Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the latter part of the letter has no application to the facts of the case. Even other wise there is no material to hold that the value was collected from the assignees before the issue of Sagavali Chit. Even other wise there is no material to hold that the value was collected from the assignees before the issue of Sagavali Chit. ( 12 ) IN the view, I have taken, petitioner was liable to pay the amount ; and it appears to be so understood by the petitioner himself, as and when he requested for Mafi Pass after depositing the amount. The dispute now raised and point now canvassed is an afterthought. I am inclined to allow I. A. I, for amendment. The contention raised in this I. A. is an elaboration of 2nd prayer in the writ petition, which is cansidered above and is rejected. ( 13 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, this petition has to fail. Rule discharged ; writ petition dismissed. No costs. --- *** --- .