( 1 ) PETITIONER being aggrieved by the order of the 1st respondent at Annexure H dated 11-4-2001 in insisting to pay the malki value at the time of seeking felling permission, has sought for issuance of a writ of cer- tiorari and, also for declaring him as the absolute owner of the trees felled and transported in Sy. Nos. 546 and 547 of Doddamagaravalli village, Chikmagalur Taluk and to direct the 1st respondent to refund the amount of Rs. 5,32,895/- paid by the petitioner together with interest at 18% from the date of deposit and for such other relief. ( 2 ) IN February 1985 petitioner was granted land to an extent of 3,30 acres in Sy. No. 196 of Doddamagaravalli village wherein he has grown coffee plantation. Another 10. 00 acres in the same survey number is said to have been granted to the petitioner's brother during June 1989. These two lands were later renumbered as Sy. Nos. 546 and 547 and after a family partition, both the lands have fallen to the share of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, at the time of grant, the 1st respondent has fixed the value of the standing trees and collected a total sum of Rs. 55,912/ -. It is further stated that the land at the time of grant was a barren land and he developed the same by raising several trees for shading the coffee plantation. To avoid excess shade, petitioner sought for permission to remove some of the trees that were in existence at the time of grant and, at the time of granting permission to fell the trees, petitioner was directed by order dated 26-2-1998, to pay a sum of Rs. 5,32,895/- said to be the difference in the value of the trees, as per Annexure C which according to the petitioner, is illegal as the trees felled included those that where planted and nurtured by the petitioner subsequent to the grant. Accordingly, petitioner filed WP 11048/1998 challenging Annexure C and for issuance of a writ of certiorar. However, by virtue of an interim order, the petitioner was directed to deposit the said amount as per Annexure C and he was permitted to lift the trees felled. The amount ordered to be deposited was to be kept in Fixed Deposit in a schedule bank for the benefit of the successful party. However, by virtue of an interim order, the petitioner was directed to deposit the said amount as per Annexure C and he was permitted to lift the trees felled. The amount ordered to be deposited was to be kept in Fixed Deposit in a schedule bank for the benefit of the successful party. However, the said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the case of the petitioner after giving him an opportunity as to whether he is liable to pay the value of the trees or not. Since there was a direction to the petitioner to pay the value of the trees within six months, he has deposited the same. Further, petitioner gave a representation, to the 1st respondent contending that he is not liable to pay the value of the trees by virtue of S. 75 of the Karnataka Land revenue Act and the Rules and also in view of the decision of this Court in N. K. Basheer ahamad v. State of Karnataka and Anr. , 1989 (2) KLJ 260. It is also the petitioner's case that once the malki value is paid and collected at the time of grant, question of further payment of malki value at the time of seeking felling permission is without authority of law and illegal. ( 3 ) IN the statement of objections filed, it is stated that at the time of grant the malki was fixed on 19-9-1987 before an year of grant and land was granted in Sy. No. 546 on 19-7-1989. The petitioner has paid the malki of Rs. 29,650/- late by an year and since it was a late payment, the saguvali chit was issued subject to the condition of payment of the revised valuation of the trees. Hence, the malki has been valued at the rate prevailing during 1989. The amount of Rs. 29. 650/- paid at the time of grant will be deducted and the petitioner has to pay the balance amount as per the valuation made. Similarly, in respect of sy. No. 547 granted during July 1987, the malki value was fixed at Rs. 5,019/- and it was paid on 24-6-1987. As per the Revenue opinion, malki has been paid for reserved kind of trees. Similarly, in respect of sy. No. 547 granted during July 1987, the malki value was fixed at Rs. 5,019/- and it was paid on 24-6-1987. As per the Revenue opinion, malki has been paid for reserved kind of trees. The petitioner had not planted any trees thereafter and the trees in respect of which felling permission was sought for by the petitioner were not valued at the time of grant since the plants had minimum growth. Accordingly, in pursuance of the condition imposed in the saguvali chit and also as per the revenue opinion, a sum of Rs, 5,32,895/- was levied on the petitioner as per Rule 11 (4) of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969. As such, petitioner is liable to pay the difference malki value. ( 4 ) ACCORDING to the respondent, although there was direction by this Court in WP 11048/ 1998. in the representation given by him the petitioner neither mentioned about the direction of the Court nor produced any copy of the judgment. Based on the representation, the deputy Forest Officer has sought for opinion of the Advocate General to inform the stage of the writ petition and later, petitioner was informed by notice dated 27-3-2001 to produce the supporting documents before the 1st respondent. ( 5 ) IT is also contended that S. 75 of the karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 is applicable only for the lands for which original survey settlement has been completed before the commencement of the Land Revenue Act. In such cases, the right of the State Government on all trees in any land except the trees reserved by the State Government or by any survey Officer shall be deemed to have been conceded to the occupant. In the case of the petitioner, both the lands were granted on 19-7-1989 and 4-7-1989 as such. S. 75 of the land Revenue Act is not applicable. How- even by order dated 11-4-2001. the 1st respondent has rejected the claim of the petitioner since the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim by producing relevant documents in support of the payment of malki at the time of grant of land. S. 75 of the land Revenue Act is not applicable. How- even by order dated 11-4-2001. the 1st respondent has rejected the claim of the petitioner since the petitioner failed to substantiate his claim by producing relevant documents in support of the payment of malki at the time of grant of land. ( 6 ) AS regards ownership and nature of the land and the trees grown on any land, it is stated, the records are maintained by the Revenue Department and the Forest Department regulates only felling and transporting of the trees as such, they have to seek opinion from the Revenue Department as to ownership of the trees. The burden is on the petitioner to substantiate his claim regarding payment of malki and the assessment of the malki is based on the opinion of the Deputy Commissioner. The forest department is empowered to assess the value of the trees situate on such lands. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to pay the malki value as demanded by the Forest department. ( 7 ) SO far as the amount deposited by the petitioner; since the petitioner has not paid the same at the time of grant it was liable to be payable to the Government and based on the revenue opinion and the Circular issued by the Department dated 1-11-1989, the 1st respondent passed the order. It is further stated that the petitioner has not challenged the said circular issued by the Forest Department. The petitioner has sought permission to fell the trees which were existing at the time of grant but which he had not grown to the full extent and in respect of those lands, the authority have assessed the malki as such, petitioner is liable to pay the malki of the trees grown up. It is further stated that there was delay in payment of the malki value by the petitioner from the date of grant till the saguvali chit was issued, and as per the grant order dated 24-1- 1987 by the Deputy Commissioner, the petitioner had paid Rs. 29,650. 70 and the balance of malki has to be recovered from him as per the prevailing rate. 29,650. 70 and the balance of malki has to be recovered from him as per the prevailing rate. The saguvali chit issued to the petitioner was also subject to the condition that the petitioner has to pay the prevailing market value and also the difference of the malki value as on the date of grant of permission to cut the trees. e. , condition 3 of the saguvali chit. As per the circular dated 14- 12-2005, the value of the trees growth will have to be assessed at the rate prevailing at the time of assessment and not at the rate prevailing on the date of grant as per R. 85 of the karnataka Forest Rules, 1969 based on the seigniorage rates. Accordingly, he has justified the action insisting on payment of the revised malki value. ( 8 ) HEARD the counsel for the petitioner and the Addl. Government Advocate. ( 9 ) BOTH the counsel have reiterated the averments in the pleadings by way of argument. ( 10 ) FURTHER, it is the argument of the petitioner's counsel that once the malki value is collected, question of further payment at the rate prevailing on the date of granting felling permission does not arise. As per the provisions of the Tree Preservation Act, petitioner only sought for permission to fell the trees and the respondent authorities ought not have imposed the condition by way of seigniorage value and collect the same though malki had been paid earlier at the time of grant. In support of his argument learned counsel has relied upon the decision in the case of N. K. Basheer Ahamad v. State of Karnataka, 1989 (2) KLJ 260. ( 11 ) IN this regard, it is to be noted as per the submission of the respondents, it is not that malki was collected on the trees standing at the time of grant but, the petitioner has sought to fell the trees which were not fully grown at the time of grant and were not assessed correctly. Further, as per Rule 2 (8), 'seigniorage' is defined as the rate fixed by the Government that is payable by the consumer for collection and removal of forest produce. Further, as per Rule 2 (8), 'seigniorage' is defined as the rate fixed by the Government that is payable by the consumer for collection and removal of forest produce. According to the respondent, as per rule 11 (4) of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, they have got a right to take the prevailing market value at the time of seeking permission and that right is said to have been reserved as a condition of grant. In the circumstances, there is no illegality on the part of the respondent authority in the event the rates are collected by the respondent authority for the trees which were said to be small and not grown fully at the time of grant and insisting on the petitioner to pay the difference when he sought for cutting/felling the same. ( 12 ) FURTHER, it is to be ascertained as to how many fully grown trees were existing at the time for grant and whether malki value of the same were assessed and it is also to be ascertained as to which were the trees not fully grown at the time of grant and which were subsequently assessed at the time of seeking felling permission and as to what was the delay in making payment after the malki value has been assessed by the respondents. On all these aspects, the petitioner has to be heard in the matter and, after enquiry and after giving an opportunity to the petitioner, the respondent authority has to pass orders afresh. If there is any difference in the value, out of the value already assessed by the 1st respondent, then on such proper assessment if the petitioner is entitled for refund, he should be given back the same. Likewise, if the petitioner has grown some trees after the grant is made, it is for the petitioner to prove the same. The ratio laid down in Basheer Ahamad's case is not applicable to the case on hand as there was no reference to reserving the right of revision at the time of grant and ordering payment of malki value subject to revision and it appears based on seigniorage, the malki is assessed and immediately the trees which were standing at the time of grant were not removed after payment of malk. When the right is reserved with the respondent for revision, it was left to the petitioner to accept the conditions or not and also the right over the trees by paying malki and also subject to revision as it appears the Forest Department intends to retain right over the trees which were standing till they are cut and removed under permission as per Rule 11 of the Land Grant Rules. ( 13 ) ACCORDINGLY, the petition is allowed in part. The impugned order is set aside and matter is remanded back to the respondent authority to act in the light of the observation made above and pass orders in accordance with law. Petition partly allowed.