Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 577 (KAR)

S. S. SUBBALAXMI v. GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA

2003-07-21

body2003
( 1 ) PETITIONERS in these writ petitions claiming ownership of lands in Sy. No. 199 measuring 5 acres and Sy. No. 200 measuring 5 acres situate at Huligaradi Village, Megunda Hobli, Koppa Taluk, Chickmagalur District have sought for quashing of endorsement dated 13. 8. 2002 (copy at Annexure G) issued by the 4th respondent, Deputy Conservator of Forest Koppa Division, Koppa as also the order dated 24. 4. 1995 (copy at Annexure A) passed by the 2nd respondent, Deputy Commissioner, Chickmagalur District. ( 2 ) PETITIONERS have also sought for a direction in the nature of mandamus to direct the 4th respondent to refund the amount of Rs. 98,051/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from 19. 7. 1996 till the date of payment. ( 3 ) PETITION averments are that the lands in question were granted by the Government of Karnataka in the year 1961-62, that the petitioners had paid the value of the trees standing on the lands at that time, that thereafter the grant had been confirmed and that they were issued saguvali chit in the year 1983, that they have become absolute owners of the these lands, that notwithstanding when petitioners sought permission for removal of trees that had been cut and which have had grown in these lands they had been asked to pay a sum of Rs. 98,051/- as maramalki. The payment of the amount is evidenced by a copy of the receipt dated 19. 7. 1996 which is produced at Annexure B. ( 4 ) THE submission of Sri Vishwanath R. Hegde, learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners had paid this amount under protest claiming that they were not liable to pay this amount presumably to the 4th respondent who had received the amount the issuing transit pass to transport the cut trees who had insisted on such payment at the instance of the 2nd respondent Deputy Commissioner, Chickmagalur District who had opined that this amount is payable to the Government to cut and remove the trees. Submission of learned Counsel is that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court in W. P. Nos. Submission of learned Counsel is that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court in W. P. Nos. 28235 and 29567 of 1997 with regard to the very grievance and this Court has disposed of these writ petitions on 16th September, 1999 copy at Annexure D reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach this Court if they are aggrieved by the subsequent orders made by the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Koppa, if they so desire. Learned Counsel submits that thereafter petitioners made efforts to obtain a copy of the order passed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Koppa and at last they have been finally given an endorsement Annexure G dated 13th August, 2002. Immediately thereafter they have presented the present writ petitions for relief. ( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners placing reliance on the earlier decision cases by this Court in K. M. Basheer and Co. v. State of Mysore and Others reported in 1975 (1) KLJ 372, N. K. Basheer Ahamed v. State of Karnataka and Another reported in 1989 (2) LJ 260 and an un-reported decision of this Court in W. P. No26713/1998 dated 15. 12. 1999 following the two earlier decisions, submits that the law laid down by this Court in those cases squarely applies to the facts of the present case also. The facts are also identical and as such these writ petitions are also to be allowed and the respondents be directed to refund the amount as sought for after quashing the orders at Annexure A and G. ( 6 ) IT is not clear from the petitions averments as to under what circumstances the proceedings were initiated. It is obvious that the petitioners were before the respondents seeking for permission to transport the cut trees and it is only in that context petitioners had paid the amount of Rs. 98,051/- for transporting the cut trees which had been grown in the lands located in the survey numbers referred to above. Petitioners are very much aware that this amount has been paid on 19. 7. 1996. If the petitioners were aggrieved by such collection they could have approach for suitable relief before the appropriate Forum. 98,051/- for transporting the cut trees which had been grown in the lands located in the survey numbers referred to above. Petitioners are very much aware that this amount has been paid on 19. 7. 1996. If the petitioners were aggrieved by such collection they could have approach for suitable relief before the appropriate Forum. Though it is asserted that the petitioners had approached this Court for relief including the relief of refund of the amount even in the year 1997 this Court being of the view that during the pendency of the petitions before this Court the 4th respondent Deputy Conservator of Forest, Koppa having passed orders directing the petitioners to pay the value of the trees for transporting the same it was proper for the petitioners to have questioned that order and without doing so petitioners cannot challenge the validity of the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner which order of opinion was used only as a base to the order passed by the 4th respondent Deputy Conservator of Forest. Petitioners have not produced any such subsequent orders that had been passed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Koppa subsequent to the filing of the writ petitions before this Court on 16th September, 1999. On the other hand what is produced in these writ petitions is only an endorsement at Annexure G which was issued in response to an application given by the petitioners on 8. 8. 2002. This again refers to the order/opinion of the Deputy Commissioner as per Annexure A and on that basis a sum of Rs. 98,051/- had been collected from the petitioners on 19. 7. 1996. Petitioners had paid the amount way back in the year 1996 itself i. e. , on 19. 7. 1996. The validity of such payment and legality of collection of such amount is challenged in these petitions. ( 7 ) PETITIONERS could have pursued for such relief even in the earlier writ petitions, petitioners had not done so. On the other hand on the strength of the so-called liberty granted to the petitioners to challenge such subsequent orders petitioners have again filed the present writ petitions in the year 2002. ( 8 ) THE Court had not been apprised in the earlier round that it is pursuant to the order of the Deputy Commissioner a sum of Rs. 98,051/- had been paid earlier. ( 8 ) THE Court had not been apprised in the earlier round that it is pursuant to the order of the Deputy Commissioner a sum of Rs. 98,051/- had been paid earlier. Obviously it is pursuant to the demand made by the 4th respondent in the context of certain proceedings pending before him the amount had been paid. Until and unless the action of the 4th respondent in collecting such amount is held to be illegal giving consequential relief does not arise. ( 9 ) I am of the view that the petitioners do not qualify for the discretion of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in as much as the relief is sought for in the year 2002 in respect of payment made in the year 1996 and by seeking quashing of certain order/endorsement the order dated 24. 4. 1995 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, which was part of the order dated 19. 7. 1996 and on the basis of which the sum of Rs. 98,051/- was paid by the petitioner on that day as charges payable to the Government to permit the petitioner to transport the timber already cut. I am of the view that these writ petitions are clearly hit by laches and that petitioners have not availed of the remedy as and when a cause has arisen. I am also of the view that the petitioners having not agitated the very question earlier in the year 1997 cannot seek to agitate it again on the strength of the order dated 16th September, 1999 passed by this Court. That very relief cannot be granted in the present round of writ petitions when it is not demonstrated that there was any subsequent development or orders passed by any of the respondent to challenge, which orders this Court has reserved liberty. No such occasion had arisen. No order passed by the respondents subsequent to the order of this Court in W. P. No. 28235 and 29567/1997 is placed before me. ( 10 ) PETITIONERS were aware all along that they have made payment in the year 1996 but have not evinced seriousness to pursue the matter diligently. They have adopted a lukewarm approach to the problems which they sought to redress before this Court even in the first round. ( 10 ) PETITIONERS were aware all along that they have made payment in the year 1996 but have not evinced seriousness to pursue the matter diligently. They have adopted a lukewarm approach to the problems which they sought to redress before this Court even in the first round. The writ petitions came to be filed much later to the payment and in the second round after another two years nine months after passing of the order in the earlier round of writ petitions. I am not at all satisfied that the petitioners have explained such tardiness on their part with cogent or reasonable explanation. The only effort appears to be keep knocking at the doors of this Court in writ jurisdiction without awaiting timely statutory remedies. ( 11 ) IN such circumstances I am of the opinion that it is not necessary for this Court to go into the merits of the case in examining the facts to which can be applied the law as sought for and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the result, writ petitions are rejected as being hit by laches. --- *** --- .