JUDGMENT P.D. Dinakaran, c.J.: This appeal arises from and is directed against the order dated 14-2-2007 in W.P. Nos. 18979 to 18982 of 2003 dismissing the writ petitions as without merit. 2. The petitioners-appellants claiming to be the owners of the coffee plantations which are fully assessed to revenue sought permission of the respondents to cut and remove the standing trees in the plantation as they were providing excess shade which is not conducive for the coffee plants. The respondents permitted them to cut the standing trees but when permission was sought for removing the cut logs, the respondents demanded payment of seigniorage. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said demand field the writ petitions seeking for a declaration that the respondent has no manner of right to claim the value of trees and for a direction to the first respondent to issue transport pass to transport the tree logs cut from the coffee plantation of which the petitioners are the occupants. The learned Single on hearing the petitioners and the respondents dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved the petitioners are before us in this appeal. 3.1 We heard the learned Counsel on both sides. 3.2 The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the lands in question are paradeena lands fully assessed on account of coffee cultivation the petitioners are the absolute owners of the trees standing thereon and the respondents could not have demanded seigniorage for permitting the removal of the cut logs. 3.3 On the other hand it is the submission of learned Government Advocate that the lands in question are not paradhina (alienated) lands and they continue to be jamma bane lands. It is his submission that they have not been detached from the service yoke of warg lands to which they wire attached and were not assessed at any time. According to the learned Government Advocate the schedule lands continued to be jamma bane as there was no corresponding provision in the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 which corresponds to Section 45 of the Coorg Land and Revenue Regulations, 1899 and Rules 136, 164 and 167 of the Rules made thereunder. The learned Government Advocate relied upon the entries made in the RTC wherein these lands have been shown as jamma bane and submits that the claim of the petitioners to the contrary is ulnfounded and baseless. 4. The learned Government Advocate relied upon the entries made in the RTC wherein these lands have been shown as jamma bane and submits that the claim of the petitioners to the contrary is ulnfounded and baseless. 4. We have given our careful consideration to the submission of both sides. . 5.1 Before we proceed to decide the question as to whether or not the petitioners are entitled to the trees standing on these lands as full owners thereof, a brief reference to the history of these lands is necessary in order to understand the very nature of these lands which factum has a direct bearing on the question to be determined in these appeals. 5.2 In the Coorg part of the State, the Kodavas who ceased to be the ruling class clung to their land as landlords paying only half the full revenue and this tenure is called jamma tenure. With every holding of jamma land the holder also acquired the use of an appurtenant plot of 'bane land'. The bane land is destined to supply the warg-holder with grazing, timber and firewood but the produce must be strictly used for domestic supply and if the timber is cut for commercial purpose then the occupant is liable to pay seignorage for the value of the wood. This position did not get altered on the coming into force of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 ('the Act' for short). 5.3 The Act repealed several enactments and the Coorg Land Revenue Regulations, 1899 is one such and the said Regulation figures at S1. No. 15 of the Schedule to Section 202. 5.4 After repeal of the Coorg Land and Revenue Regulations, 1899 the holder of a jamma bane land continued to hold it in the same condition with the same privileges that existed hitherto before the coming into force of the Act. The status quo ante regarding privileges of jamma bane continued to operate after 1964, but never got enlarged into full ownership. The only exception to this rule is where the jamma bane had become an alienated bane and got detached from the service yoke of the warg land to which it was attached and it was fully assessed to revenue. 6. With the above background let us now examine whether the petitioners are entitled to the relief sought for by them in these writ petitions. 6. With the above background let us now examine whether the petitioners are entitled to the relief sought for by them in these writ petitions. The claim of the petitioners that they are owners of fully assessed lands used for cultivation of coffee has remained just a mere claim and they have failed to produce any documents to support the claim. On the other hand the respondents have relied upon the general power of attorney given by the petitioner before the notary on 19th November, 2002 in favour of one Mr. Riyad wherein the tenure of the schedule land is noted as )amma bane'. The Record of Rights and Tenancy Certificate (RTC) issued by the Revenue Department also states that the tenure of the schedule land is 'jamma bane' and not A paridhana (alienated) land. The respondents have taken a definite stand that as on 1-4-1964 when the Coorg Land and Revenue Regulations, 1899 was repealed by the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the tenure of the schedule lands continued to be unalienated Jamma bane'. This stand of the respondents is well-supported by the RTC extracts produced along with the statement of objections filed by the State. The Karnataka Land Revenue Act does not provide for alienation of bane lands. It is, therefore, difficult to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners-appellants that the schedule lands are paridhana lands and the occupants being full owners thereof are hot liable to pay seignorage. 7.1 Our conclusion gets fortified by the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Cheek ere Kariyappa Poovaiah and Others v StiJte of Karnataka and Others\ wherein it is held: (i)……… (ii) such privileges enjoyed by the jamma bane holder do not entitle him to any sub-soil rights in the jamma bane land nor had he any interest of right in the standing trees and he could not utilise these trees for commercial purpose without payment of full timber value to the Government. He was also not the owner of the air column above the surface of the land. He was also not the owner of the air column above the surface of the land. 7.2 To similar effect is the ratio laid down by this Court in State of Karnataka v T. V. Ramaraju Naidu, wherein it is held: - "The bane holder has only right to graze cattle, to supply of leaf manure, firewood and timber required for the agricultural and domestic purposes so long as he holds the wet land to which the bane land is attached. Bane holder is not treated as having any right to cultivation of bane lands or to the trees on bane lands". 7.3 Thus, after giving our anxious consideration to the contentions urged on both sides and the position obtaining in law, we hold that the bane holder has no proprietary right to the soil of bane land and to the trees standing thereon. Therefore, collection of seigniorage, if timber is sold off a bane land is the natural right of Government and the petitioners cannot take any exception to it. In the result, we find no merit in this appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.