Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 634 (KAR)

RADHABAI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2003-08-01

D.V.SHYLENDRA KUMAR

body2003
D. V SHYLENDRA KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER claims to be a purchaser of Sy. No. 15/2 measuring 3 acres 12 guntas of Kannadagal village in Yellapur taluk, Uttara Kannada District, having pur- chased the same from one Duming Pavin siddi for a consideration amount of Rs. 5. 000/- by a sale deed dated 30-1-1975. It is claimed that the petitioner is growing paddy, Coconut and other crops in his land. It is also claimed that forest land abutting this agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 32-A had been sanctioned as the strip land to Sy. No. 15/2 by the Government in the year 1952, for the beneficial enjoyment of the agricultural land. Petitioner claims that she was also enjoying the strip land by planting fruit bearing trees such as Jackfruit, Mango. Cashewnut and other fruit yielding trees. The petitioner has also pleaded that the forest officials had made an attempt to plant forest trees in the strip land and the petitioner objected to it and prevented the same. The petitioner also claims that the Forest department has no right to take such action as it was the land, which was granted in favour of the owner of the agricultural land bearing Sy. No. 32-A earlier and which the petitioner had purchased. However, the forest officials did not accept the same, but directed the petitioner to ascertain the right, if any, before the Court of law. Petitioner also claims that she has registered a Civil suit O. S. No. 32/2000 before the City Civil judge (Jr. Dn.) at Yellapur, praying for restraining the defendants therein, but it appears that the petitioner was not successful in getting any positive orders in the said suit. ( 2 ) THE grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that the 3rd respondent Assistant Conservator of Forest, Yellapura, has now passed an order in case No. A-5 strip land CR 2001-2002 dated 30-8-2002, withdrawing the concession of providing strip land to the petitioner's land in Sy. No. 15/2 in violation of the provisions of Section 131 (C) of the Karnataka Forest Manual under which provision the concession of strip land had been extended to the owner of the land in Sy. No. 15/2. As such a concession has been withdrawn forthwith, the petitioner has approached this Court questioning the legality of the order. No. 15/2 in violation of the provisions of Section 131 (C) of the Karnataka Forest Manual under which provision the concession of strip land had been extended to the owner of the land in Sy. No. 15/2. As such a concession has been withdrawn forthwith, the petitioner has approached this Court questioning the legality of the order. ( 3 ) SRI Krishnamurthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order is without jurisdiction, that it has been passed without giving opportunity to the petitioner, that it is also not in consonance with the provisions of Section 131 (C) (v) of the karnataka Forest Manual and is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner, elaborating his submission points out that the power to withdraw the strip concession lies with the Deputy Commissioner who has to act under the control of the Conservator of Forests, Division Commissioner by upholding the order of the Deputy Commissioner and as in the instant case such power has been exercised by the Assistant conservator it is one without jurisdiction. Learned counsel also submits that the order is bad for violation of principles of natural justice. ( 4 ) THE Government Pleader has filed statement of Objections on behalf of Respondent No. 2. It is pointed out that the petition is liable to be dismissed because the deputy Conservator of Forest who is a necessary party has not been impleaded as respondent. Petitioner being the purchaser of land in Sy. No. 15 was not having any right over any part of forest land in Sy. No. 32-A. That the forest officials found during the course of survey, that the petitioner was carrying on non-forest activities in the strip land and that assuming that the petitioner had purchased the land in Sy. No. 15/2 from its erstwhile owner, that a part of forest land in. Sy. No. 32/a abutting the agricultural land in Sy. No. 15/2 had been allowed to be used as strip land with the corresponding privilege as contemplated under Sec. 131 (C) of the Karnataka Forest Manual and the officials have taken action in cancelling of this privilege due to the violations of conditions subject to which strip land facility had been extended. It is also asserted thai the land was not in the nature of Kumki land but it is in the nature of strip land. It is also asserted thai the land was not in the nature of Kumki land but it is in the nature of strip land. ( 5 ) THE provision which the learned counsel points out is the power for cancelling vested in the Deputy Commissioner under the supervision of Divisional Commissioner in respect of Betta grants and is the provision for suspension of privilege that arose in respect of lands granted as Betta in favour of agriculturist in protected forest. This provision has no application to the case of strip land privileges of which is provided under the provisions of Section 131 (C) of the karnataka Forest Manual. The relevant provision reads as under :" (XV) If the strip grantee commits a breach of any of the conditions mentioned above. the concessions granted in the strip will be withdrawn without giving any notice. The cancellation of the concessions and termination of the agreement for any reason shall not relieve the strip grantee from any liability incurred before the termination of the agreement. The deposit of Rs. 50/- tendered by the grantee shall be forfeited to Government, in the event of any breach of conditions or cancellation of the grant. " ( 6 ) THIS provision does not speak about the power being exercised by the Deputy commissioner or Divisional Commissioner. On the other the very concession -for using the forest land as strip land is by making an application in this regard by the owner by submitting an application to the Range forest Officer and on whose report the Divisional Forest Officer permits or allows the application. Act of grant of concession and withdrawal of the concession is only by the forest officer as indicated in Section 131 (C) of the Manual. ( 7 ) THE next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order has been passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner and is in violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner has no right in respect of strip land. It is a concession extended in a part of the forest land for better or proper enjoyment of agricultural land. The petitioner has no right in respect of strip land. It is a concession extended in a part of the forest land for better or proper enjoyment of agricultural land. The strip land continues to remain as forest land which is very clear as indicated in Section 131 (C) (xii), (g) which is as under :"it should be clearly understood that the strip area is a Reserved forest in charge of the Forest Department and any offence committed in the area will be dealt with under the Act. " ( 8 ) WHEN a concession is given with such condition, it is open to the forest officials to withdraw the strip land facility when they find out the violation or abuse of the condition. The impugned order clearly indicates that there was such violation. In fact though not necessary the forest officials have taken the precaution referring the matter to the deputy Commissioner who in turn has referred the matter to the Divisional Commissioner. The land in question being in the nature of strip land, it is for the forest officials to take suitable action. The question of violation of any right of the petitioner does not arise. Petitioner has no right in respect of which she can c omplaint of the violation of the principles of natural justice and also petitioner is not entitled for any such hearing before the order was passed as per annexure-A. This is also clear from the provision of Section 131 (C) (xv), which has been referred to earlier in this order. ( 9 ) IN any view of the matter, there is no merit in the contention that the order is one without jurisdiction and in violation of principles of natural justice or even of the provisions of the Karnataka Forest Manual under which Government extends concession in respect of strip land. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the extension of concession and withdrawing or suspension of concession in respect of strip land is governed by the provision relating to Betta land which is misconceived that is being urged as the main ground for quashing of the order impugned. ( 10 ) IN a matter of concession, there does not arise any right to the petitioner. In the light of the discussion above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. ( 10 ) IN a matter of concession, there does not arise any right to the petitioner. In the light of the discussion above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Petition dismissed.