Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 177 (KAR)

A. T. CHENGAPPA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2000-02-28

V.GOPALA GOWDA

body2000
V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) DESPITE calls there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Heard the learned Government Pleader. Perused the petition averments, counter statement and the documents. ( 2 ) ). The petitioner was granted permission under Annexure-A dated 1-12-1993 to fell certain tress in the lands mentioned in the Schedule in the writ petition. The period for which the said permission granted was up to 15-1-1994. It is stated that petitioner had to pick the coffee crop before felling the trees and he had to wait for some time. He filed an application to the 2nd respondent to extend the time for felling the trees. By the impugned endorsement at Annexure-C dated 15-7-1995 the petitioner was informed that his request cannot be considered as the Government order dated 12-4-1991 is withdrawn. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the 2nd respondent to extend the time for felling the trees. ( 3 ) STATEMENT of objections is filed on behalf of respondents stating that the lands in question are 'unredeemed' lands and the trees grown therein vests with the Government. It is further stated that the relaxation order dated 10/12-4-1991 has been withdrawn by the Government on 18-7-1994. The stand taken is that the petitioner should have cut the trees within the permitted period. In view of withdrawal of the relaxation order by the Government, the 2nd respondent cannot extend the time sought for by the petitioner. The petitioner has been advised to file application under Rule 132 of the Karnataka Forest Rules for providing shade to his coffee cultivation. Respondents have prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. ( 4 ) ADMITTEDLY the petitioner has not availed the permission granted under Annexure-A to fell the trees. If he wanted to wait to pick the coffee crop as stated in paragraph 5 of the writ petition, he could not have filed application seeking permission to fell the trees. Having applied and obtained the permission, since he did not fell the trees within the stipulated period, he has to blame himself. ( 5 ) IN the light of the statement made in the counter that the Government has withdrawn the relaxation order, the 2nd respondent cannot grant extension of time sought for by the petitioner. Having applied and obtained the permission, since he did not fell the trees within the stipulated period, he has to blame himself. ( 5 ) IN the light of the statement made in the counter that the Government has withdrawn the relaxation order, the 2nd respondent cannot grant extension of time sought for by the petitioner. Added to this, it is clear from Annexure-A that the lands in question are 'unredeemed' lands and in the counter it is stated that either the owner or occupant of such lands has no right over the tree grown and the trees grown in such lands vest in the Government. The petitioner has not controverted this stand. Hence, he has no right to fell the trees standing on the lands in question. Consequently, it follows that the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted. ( 6 ) THE permission granted under Annexure-A to the petitioner expired on 15-1-1994. The petitioner requested for extension of time only on 25-4-1995 as is evident from the reference in Annexure-C. He has not made any attempts to seek extension of time immediately prior to or after the period granted under Annexure-A. The petitioner has allowed the time to lapse. It is also not stated when he picked the coffee crop mentioned in paragraph 5 of the petition. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for extension of time to fell the trees. ( 7 ) IT is also to be noted that petitioner has not made any prayer to quash the endorsement at Annexure-A which he was informed that extension of time cannot be granted. Contrary to that endorsement the relief could not have been sought by the petitioner. On this score also the petition is liable to be dismissed. ( 8 ) ACCORDINGLY, the writ petition is dismissed. --- *** --- .