Judgment : 1. The petitioners are before this Court assailing the order dated 20.03.2009 passed by respondent No. 3 as at Annexure-A to the petition. 2. The case of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 had applied for grant of land for coffee cultivation in Sy.No.209 of Pandaravalli Village, Chickmagalur Taluk. The extent of 24 acres in Sy.No.209 of Pandaravalli Village, Chickmagalur Taluk, was granted in favour of petitioner No. 1 by the order dated 30.09.1984. The grant order permitted the petitioners to retain the tree growth after payment of the seigniorage value which was calculated at Rs.2,62,262.10ps. The said amount is stated to have been paid by the petitioners. The 'Sagavali Chit' was thereafter issued in favour of petitioner No.1 wherein the terms of the grant was also indicated. As per the same, the sandalwood trees only were reserved in favour of the Government. 3. Subsequently, when the petitioners had sought to regulate the shade in the coffee cultivation and to remove certain trees, the amount of Rs.1,60,700.55ps was collected from the petitioners towards the additional seigniorage value. Subsequently, a sum of Rs.2,74,705/- was also collected from the petitioners towards the difference of seigniorage value. Thereafter when 15 rosewood trees were sought to be removed, the same were transported to the Government depot and were auctioned for a sum of Rs.3,71,300/-. But the said amount had not been paid to the petitioners. It is in that regard, the petitioners though had paid the amounts as sought for by the respondents, only to enable them to remove the trees without hindrance had subsequently made a representation dated 29.08.2006 seeking refund of the additional amount that had been collected. The petitioners are also seeking for the value of the rosewood trees. Since the said representation had not been considered, the petitioners were before this Court in W.P.No.19761/2007 which was disposed of on 31.10.2008, wherein a direction was issued to consider the representation of the petitioners and pass appropriate orders. The respondents have thereafter passed the order dated 20.03.2009 rejecting the request of the petitioners for refund of the amount for the value of the rosewood trees, which is impugned at Annexure-A to the petition. 4. The respondents have filed their objection statement. The fact that the land was granted to the petitioners on 30.09.1984 as claimed by the petitioners is not disputed. 4. The respondents have filed their objection statement. The fact that the land was granted to the petitioners on 30.09.1984 as claimed by the petitioners is not disputed. Further, the calculation of the seigniorage value at Rs.2,62,262.10ps at the time of grant is also not in dispute. The subsequent payments as made by the petitioners are also admitted. However, it is contended that at the time when the grant was made and the seigniorage value was calculated, the same was only provisional and subsequently, as and when the trees were sought to be removed and when it is noticed that there were more number of trees than the trees that were taken into consideration and when the provisional assessment was made at the time of grant, the value as required to be paid in respect of the malki has been subsequently calculated as the difference amount. As such, it is contended that the respondents are justified in their action. 5. Further, with regard to the rosewood trees that were removed from the said property owned by the petitioners and the same being transported to the Forest Depot and being sold for a sum of Rs.3,71,300/- is not in dispute. But the respondents contend that the petitioners are not entitled to the value of the same keeping in view the time gap between the earlier orders that were made and the tree growth which was available for felling once over again. The communication dated 08.08.2005 at Annexure-R1 to the objection statement is relied to indicate that based on the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner, the valuation of the additional tree growth has been made. In that context, it is contended that the order at Annexure-A is justified and the same does not call for interference. 6. In the light of the above, a perusal of the documents produced along with the petition would indicate that the grant order dated 30.09.1984 at Annexure-B would indicate that at that point in time itself the trees in the land has been valued and the seigniorage value was assessed at Rs.2,62,262.10ps. The said value was calculated as per the document at Annexure-E wherein a sum of Rs.3,13,244/-has been paid by the petitioners. The said value was calculated as per the document at Annexure-E wherein a sum of Rs.3,13,244/-has been paid by the petitioners. The 'Saguvali Chit' at Annexure-D would indicate the conditions of Grant and Clause No.6 therein refers to the tree growth on the land and it is indicated that the sandalwood trees on the land would be the property of the Government and no other reservation in respect of the other different types of the trees has been made therein. Since the subsequent permission sought by the petitioners for shade lapping as well as removing certain trees is not disputed and the amounts have already been paid by the petitioners are also admitted, the details of the same need not be gone into except to consider as to whether the request of the petitioners for refund of the amount would be justified. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners on referring to these factual aspects would rely the decision of this Court in the case of N.K.Basheer Ahamed -vs- State of Karnataka and Another (1989 (2) KLJ 260) wherein the issue relating to the payment of seigniorage value was considered and it was held that the seigniorage value calculated at the first instance would be the only amount payable by the grantee and the subsequent demands would not be justified. In that context, this Court has directed to refund the additional amount that had been paid. A similar issue was also considered by this Court in W.P.No.26713/1998 disposed of on 15.12.1999, wherein the decision in the case of N.K.Basheer Ahamed was relied and the learned Judge after noticing the similar set of conditions imposed in the 'Saguvali Chit' relating to reservation of sandalwood trees only, was of the view that the seigniorage value paid at the time of the grant would be the appropriate value which is to be collected and the subsequent payment made by the petitioner was ordered to be refunded. 8. Learned Government Advocate would refer to the decision in the case of Babajan .H -vs- Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bhadravathi and Another [1986 (2) KLJ 423] to contend that another learned Judge of this Court has held that the grantee would have no right over the trees. 9. 8. Learned Government Advocate would refer to the decision in the case of Babajan .H -vs- Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bhadravathi and Another [1986 (2) KLJ 423] to contend that another learned Judge of this Court has held that the grantee would have no right over the trees. 9. Having noticed the said decisions, in the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners, a similar issue relating to the seigniorage value being assessed and calculated at the time of grant and the payment of additional amount thereafter had arisen for consideration. The question therein was as to whether the subsequent additional seigniorage value calculated would be justified or not. On the other hand, the decision cited by the learned Government Advocate was an issue where the right of the grantee to the tree growth in granted land was considered and where at the first instance the seigniorage value had not been paid at all; in such circumstance, when 'maafi pass' had been sought for removal of the bamboo from the said land, the provisions were considered and it was held that mere grant would not give right in respect of tree growth and the seigniorage value would have to be paid. 10. In the instant case, I am of the opinion that the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners would be relevant. If the decision as rendered therein is kept in view, the facts in the instant case is similar inasmuch as in the grant order only sandalwood trees had been reserved and no other trees have been notified as reserved therein. Further, when at the time of grant itself, the other trees were valued and the seigniorage value had been calculated, the question of paying the additional seigniorage value once over again does not arise. 11. In that view, the nature of the consideration as made in the impugned order dated 20.03.2009 at Annexure-A would not be justified. Hence, the rejection of the request as made by the petitioners through their representation dated 29.08.2006 would not be justified. Accordingly, the order impugned at Annexure-A is quashed. 11. In that view, the nature of the consideration as made in the impugned order dated 20.03.2009 at Annexure-A would not be justified. Hence, the rejection of the request as made by the petitioners through their representation dated 29.08.2006 would not be justified. Accordingly, the order impugned at Annexure-A is quashed. The respondents are directed to take note of the request made by the petitioners vide their representation dated 29.08.2006 and also the further representation submitted by the petitioners pursuant to the order of this Court dated 31.10.2008 in W.P.No.19761/2007 and pass appropriate orders for refund of the additional amount that has been deposited by the petitioners referred to herein during the course of the said order and the value of the rosewood trees auctioned and realised. The compliance shall be done as expeditiously as possible, but not later than three months from the date the certified copy of this order is furnished. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.