JUDGMENT Nagarathna, J. - I.A.No.I/2019 has been filed by the respondent, seeking early hearing of this appeal. With the consent of learned Addl. Govt. Advocate (AGA) appearing for the appellant State and learned counsel for respondent, the appeal has been heard finally. 2. The State has filed this appeal being aggrieved by order dated 12/12/2013 passed in W.P.No.18846/2013 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. By the said order, the writ petition was disposed by quashing Annexure "H" being the impugned order dated 11/10/2012 and directing the State and other authorities to refund a sum of Rs.5,32,895/- deposited by the respondent herein, with interest accrued thereon, within a period of two months from the date of furnishing a copy of the order. The amount has been deposited by the respondent herein in State Bank of India, Chickmagalur Branch, by virtue of interim order dated 03/04/1998 in W.P.No.11048/1998. 3. This writ appeal has a checkered history. Succinctly stated, the facts are that respondent being an agriculturist was granted land under two orders namely, by order dated 28/02/1985 to an extent of 3 Acres 30 Guntas in Sy.No.196 of Doddamagaravalli village and a further extent of 10 Acres in the same survey number was granted to the brother of the respondent on 07/12/1988. The said lands are situated in Doddamagaravalli village, which was granted for the purpose of coffee plantation, since the land was used for coffee plantation and the tree growth would winder coffee plantation and for the purpose of shade lapping, the respondent herein sought permission of the Deputy Commissioner for felling the trees. The Deputy Commissioner had to consider as to whether there was any reservation of the trees made at the time of grant and also the value of the tree growth that had been collected at the time of the grant and as to whether the same was paid or not. When a demand was made for payment of additional value for the trees, the respondent herein filed W.P.No.11048/1998. The said writ petition was disposed of on 12/09/1999. However, in the said writ petition, pursuant to the interim order dated 03/04/1998, a sum of Rs.5,32,895/- was deposited by the respondent, subject to result of the writ petition, since the tree growth was removed. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to make appropriate request regarding the said amount. The said writ petition was disposed of on 12/09/1999. However, in the said writ petition, pursuant to the interim order dated 03/04/1998, a sum of Rs.5,32,895/- was deposited by the respondent, subject to result of the writ petition, since the tree growth was removed. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to make appropriate request regarding the said amount. The petitioner, however, once again approached this Court in W.P.No.22967/2001, which was disposed of on 08/03/2007. While considering the same matter, learned Single Judge in the said writ petition was of the opinion that the matter required re-consideration by the authorities and remanded the matter. However, being aggrieved by the said remand, respondent herein filed W.A.No.791/2007. The Division Bench disposed of the said appeal by judgment dated 20/06/2012 and the order of remand made by learned Single Judge was not interfered with and the matter was left open to be reconsidered. The Deputy Conservator of Forests passed an order dated 11/10/2012 at Annexure "H". The same was assailed in W.P.No.18846/2013 out of which, this writ appeal arises. The said writ petition was heard by the learned Single Judge and the aforesaid directions were issued. Being aggrieved by the direction issued to the appellants to refund a sum of Rs.5,32,895/-, the State has preferred this appeal. 4. We have heard learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State and learned counsel for respondent and perused the material on record. 5. Learned A.G.A. contended that Rule 11 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969 [hereinafter, referred to as "the Rules", for the sake of brevity], applies in the instant case. There is no dispute that an extent of 3 Acres 30 Guntas and 10 Acres, were granted to the appellant and his brother and subsequently, the said extents were allotted to the respondent at a partition in his family. The said grants were made on 28/02/1985 and 07/12/1988, but at the time of grant, the assessment made as per Rule 11(2) was only tentative and as and when the respondent would seek permission for felling of trees, the difference in the market value of trees had to be paid by the respondent. The same was demanded by the appellant - authorities and rightly so. The same was demanded by the appellant - authorities and rightly so. In other words, it is her submission that value of trees would be always in escalation and the assessment made under Rule 11(2) is only a tentative assessment and as and when the value of the trees increase at the time of seeking permission to cut and remove the trees and transport permission, the differential value of the market value would have to be paid, which is exactly what was demanded by the Deputy Conservator of Forests while passing order under Annexure "H" dated 11/10/2012. Hence, the learned Single Judge was not right in quashing the said order and directing refund of Rs.5,32,895/- to the respondent. 6. During the course of submission, she drew our attention to Rule 11 in detail and contended that having regard to sub-rules (3) and (4) of Rule 11, respondent had to pay the prevailing market value before seeking permission to cut and remove the trees. Whatever assessment had been made earlier, it was only an estimate or a tentative one and not a final value of the trees. She placed reliance on a judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Adiveppa Babappa Hulasera vs. Divisional Forest Officer, (1989) ILR(Kar) 1228 (Adiveppa Babappa Hulasera), in support of her submission. It was contended that the impugned order may be set aside and the writ petition may be dismissed. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submitted that there is no dispute with regard to grant of land made to the respondent and his brother in two parcels i.e., 3 Acres 30 Guntas and 10 Acres in the years 1985 and 1988 respectively. That subsequently, both the parcels of land devolved in the ownership of respondent at a partition that took place in respondent's family. That when the grant was made, there was an assessment made with regard to the tree growth on the lands granted in terms of sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 11. Subsequent to the said assessment of the value of the trees, intimation was sent to the respondent to pay the said value as per Annexure "B" dated 18/06/1987 and Annexure "C" dated 17/12/1988. Subsequent to the said assessment of the value of the trees, intimation was sent to the respondent to pay the said value as per Annexure "B" dated 18/06/1987 and Annexure "C" dated 17/12/1988. That a demand was made for payment of Rs.15,019/- being the value of the tree growth to an extent of 3 Acres 30 Guntas of land and total sum of Rs.24,670/- arose in respect of the value of the trees for an extent of 10 Acres of land both in Sy.No.196 of Doddamagaravalli village. That pursuant to the said intimation, the amounts were tendered. Later, when the respondent sought permission to transport the trees which had been felled by him as they were under his ownership, the demand for payment of differential value of Rs.5,32,896.99 was made. It was in the aforesaid circumstance, the two writ petitions namely, W.P.No.11048/1998, W.P.No.22967/2001 and W.A.No.791/2007 were filed before this Court. The writ petition out of which the present appeal arises is with regard to refund of amount of Rs.5,32,895/-, which was deposited by the respondent before the State Bank of India, Chickmagalur, pursuant to order passed in W.P.No.11048/1998 dated 03/04/1998. That on the said amount being deposited, the felled trees were removed. That learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the case of the respondent and ordered for refund, as there was no differential value of the trees that had to be paid by the respondent. There is no infirmity in the impugned order, as such, there is no merit in the appeal and hence, the appeal may be dismissed. 8. By way of reply, learned A.G.A. submitted that one of the conditions of the grant was that Rule 11 was applicable and it is in terms of Rule 11 that a demand for payment of Rs.5,32,895/-, being the differential value of the trees was rightly demanded by the appellants and in response to which, respondent has deposited the same, but the learned Single Judge ought not to have ordered for refund of the said amount. She submitted that in terms of Rule 11, the differential value had to be paid for the trees when they were to be cut and removed and the order for direction for refund is erroneous. 9. She submitted that in terms of Rule 11, the differential value had to be paid for the trees when they were to be cut and removed and the order for direction for refund is erroneous. 9. On hearing learned A.G.A. for the State and other appellants and learned counsel for respondents, the following points would arise for our consideration:- (1) Whether the order of the learned Single Judge calls for any interference in this appeal? (2) What order? 10. The fact that two parcels of land being 3.30 Acres and 10 Acres in Sy.No.196 of Doddamagaravalli village were granted and are in the ownership of the respondent is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that an assessment of the trees on the said valuation of land, which were granted was also made. Annexure "B" and "C" are the intimation issued by the Tahsildar of Chickmagalur Taluk, subsequent to the assessment made intimating the respondent to pay a sum of Rs.15,019/- out of Rs.17,916/- and a sum of Rs.24,670/- out of a sum of Rs.37,996.85, being the value of trees on the extent of 3.30 Acres and 10 Acres of land respectively. There is no dispute that pursuant to the said intimation the said amounts were paid by the respondent. It is only thereafter, in the year 1998, the respondent sought transport permission to transport the timber that has been felled by him. It is at that stage, demand was made for paying the differential value of the trees by contending that the value of the trees as they were in the year 1998 had to be paid. It is in this context that earlier W.P.No.11048/1998 was filed seeking quashing of order dated 26/02/1998 (Annexure "C" to the writ petition), a copy of which is produced as Annexure "E" to the writ petition, out of which, this appeal arises. This Court in the said writ petition had passed an interim order dated 03/04/1998 directing respondent to deposit a sum of Rs.5,32,895/- being the differential value of the felled trees and the respondent had complied with the said direction. It was stated that the said deposit was subject to the result of the writ petition and subject to determination of the value of the trees of which the respondent was liable to pay as per the assessment. It was stated that the said deposit was subject to the result of the writ petition and subject to determination of the value of the trees of which the respondent was liable to pay as per the assessment. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the appellants herein to remove the Fixed Deposits in the Bank in respect of a sum of Rs.5,32,895/- which was deposited. The matter was remanded for reconsideration. 11. Subsequently, on remand, another order dated 11/04/2001 was passed, by which a demand was made to pay the market value of the trees which were felled. The same was challenged in W.P.No.22967/2001. In the said writ petition also a claim of refund of Rs.5,32,895/- deposited by the respondent, with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of deposit was sought. That writ petition also was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 08/03/2007 by setting aside the impugned order dated 11/04/2001 and remanding the matter to the authorities in light of the observations made in the said writ petition. Being aggrieved by the said order respondent herein preferred W.A.No.791/2007 by way of intra-court appeal. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by its judgment dated 20/06/2012 dismissed the writ appeal by holding that there was no reason to interfere with the order of remand of the learned Single Judge. Thereafter, on remand, the impugned order dated 11/10/2012 at Annexure "H" to the writ petition was passed by the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Chickmagalur Division, Chickmagalur, one of the appellants herein, stating that the amount of Rs.5,32,895/- deposited by the respondent is adjusted to the revenue of the Government. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 11/10/2012, W.P.No.18846/2013 was filed by the respondent herein which has been disposed of by granting the relief to the respondent by directing the appellants herein to refund a sum of Rs.5,32,895/- deposited by him with interest accrued thereon within a period of two months from the date of furnishing a copy of the said order. It is the aforesaid refund direction for the State and other authorities have assailed in this appeal. 12. We have narrated in detail the contentions of learned A.G.A. appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel for respondents and the same would not call for reiteration. 13. It is the aforesaid refund direction for the State and other authorities have assailed in this appeal. 12. We have narrated in detail the contentions of learned A.G.A. appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel for respondents and the same would not call for reiteration. 13. Prior to the reading of Rule 11 of the Rules, it would be useful to refer to the scheme of the said Rules. Rule 3 of the Rules deals with preparation and publication of list of lands available for disposal; while Rule 4 of the Rules deals with persons eligible for grant of land for agricultural purposes. In this case, two parcels of lands were granted to the respondent for agricultural purposes. Rule 5 prescribes reservations or priority to be given to certain categories of persons at the time of disposal of land in any village, which is available for disposal inasmuch as persons such as Ex-servicemen and soldiers, persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (inclusive of atrocity affected women and persons 10% each), project displaced families, physically challenged persons and others are entitled to seek priority. Rule 5A deals with lands disposed of to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in a Taluk to be not less than fifty per cent. The order of priority in disposing of the land among persons belonging to a certain categories is stated in Rule 6, while Rule 7 prescribes the extent of land to be granted. The procedure for grant of lands for agricultural purposes is contemplated in Rule 8, while the conditions of grant are stipulated in Rule 9. Rule 10 deals with restriction on disposal of land in certain cases and Rule 11, which is the rule under consideration deals with disposal of tree growth on lands granted. This matter revolves around Rule 11 of the Rules and the said Rule reads as under:- "11. Disposal of tree growth on lands granted. (1) The value of all trees standing on the land granted under these rules shall be assessed by the authorities of the Forest Department. This matter revolves around Rule 11 of the Rules and the said Rule reads as under:- "11. Disposal of tree growth on lands granted. (1) The value of all trees standing on the land granted under these rules shall be assessed by the authorities of the Forest Department. (2) Where the value of trees so assessed is not more than rupees twenty-five thousand in case of lands granted for the cultivation of plantation crops and is not more than rupees five thousand in case of other lands, the grantee should be given the option of paying that estimated price within a time to be stipulated by the granting authority and the trees sold to him. If he once agrees to pay the value of trees the default should occasion cancellation. If the grantee is not willing to pay the value of trees assessed by the Forest Department, the trees shall be disposed so by the authorities of the Forest Department by tender-cum-auction sale. (3) Where the value of trees so assessed is more than Rupees Twenty-five thousand in case of land granted for the cultivation of Plantation Crops and is more than Rupees Five thousand in case of other Lands the Trees shall be removed by the authorities of the Forests Department within One Year from the date of the grant of land: Provided that the Divisional Commissioner may, on the recommendation of the Divisional Forest Officer having jurisdiction over the area in which such land is situate, extend the period by one more year, and, in exceptional circumstances, by such further period as to coincide with the end of one more working season. (4) If within the aforesaid period, such trees are not so removed, the trees may be sold to the grantee of the land on payment of the value of such trees as assessed by the authorities of the Forest Department with reference to the prevailing market rate. (4) If within the aforesaid period, such trees are not so removed, the trees may be sold to the grantee of the land on payment of the value of such trees as assessed by the authorities of the Forest Department with reference to the prevailing market rate. (4-A) Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (4) in cases where trees standing on the land granted are required by these rules, to be removed by the authorities of the Forest Department, possession of the land shall not be given until such trees are removed by the authorities of the Forest Department: (5) Where the grantee desires that any fruit yielding trees like 'Mavu', 'Halsu', 'Nerale', 'Hunse', 'Neli', 'Seethaphal', 'Cashew' and any manural trees like 'Honge', 'Seemethangadi', 'Basavanapada' and 'Glyricidia' standing on such land be granted to him, such trees shall not be extracted or disposed of by the authorities of the Forest Department, if the grantee pays the value of such tree or trees assessed by the authorities of the Forest Department." Sub-rule (1) of Rule 11 states that the value of all trees standing on the land granted under the rules shall be assessed by the authorities of the Forest Department. The said rule has made a distinction between the assessment of the value of the trees which are not more than Rs.25,000/- in case of lands granted for cultivation of plantation crops and value of trees which are more than Rs.25,000/- in such cases. In case of value of trees assessed being not more than Rs.25,000/- and in case of land granted for cultivation of plantation crops, the grantee is given an option of paying the estimated price within the time to be stipulated by the granting authority and the trees are sold to him. On the other hand, if the grantee is not ready to pay the amount assessed by the Forest Department, the trees shall be disposed of by the Forest Department in a tender. In other words, the assessment of the value of the trees has to be made when the land is being granted to a person in the case of cultivation, as plantation crops. In the instant case, the same being for the purpose of coffee plantation, the assessment was made and intimation as per Annexure "B" and "C" referred to above were sent to the respondent grantee. In the instant case, the same being for the purpose of coffee plantation, the assessment was made and intimation as per Annexure "B" and "C" referred to above were sent to the respondent grantee. It is not the case of the State that the grantee did not pay the said amount. On the other hand, the said amount being paid by the grantee the trees have been sold to the grantee as has been contemplated under sub-rule (2) of Rule 11. 14. The object and purpose of Rule 11 is that the State to make an assessment of the tree growth on the granted land and have an option to reserve certain trees in favour of the Department and at the same time, assess the trees which are not reserved, so that the same could be sold by assessing the value of such trees to the grantee at the time of granting the land to the grantee. Thus, the value of the land and the value of the trees on the said land are separately assessed and Rule 11 specifically deals with assessment of the tree growth on the lands granted. 15. At this stage, it may be noted that sub-rule 2 of Rule 11 specifically states that where the value of the trees assessed is not more than rupees twenty five thousand in case of lands granted for the cultivation of plantation crops (in the instant case, it is for coffee plantation), in such cases, the estimated price are to be stipulated, paid and trees are sold to the grantee. Sub rule 3 of Rule 11 on the other hand, deals with the case where the value of the trees assessed is more than rupees twenty five thousand in case of land granted for plantation of cultivation of crops. In such a case, Forest Department has a right to remove the said trees within one year from the date of the grant of land. The said right is to a right on the presumption that would not have any sale of the trees to the grantee immediately on the price being paid for the Forest Department as the first right to cut and remove the trees on the land where the assessment of the trees is more than rupees twenty five thousand in case of land granted for cultivation of plantation crops. There is also a time stipulation within which the Forest Department must exercise its right to remove the trees on such land i.e., a period of one year. The proviso to sub-rule 3 however, states that period of one year could be extended in exceptional circumstances and the further period has to coincide at the end of one more working session. 16. Sub-Rule 4 says that if within the aforesaid period, such trees are not removed, the trees may be sold to the grantee of the land on payment of the value of such trees and assessed by the authorities of the Forest Department with reference to the prevailing market value. In other words, whatever assessment has been made under sub-rule 3 of Rule 11 is at the prevailing market value and on such amount being paid, the trees would be sold to the grantee of the land. Obviously, the said market value would be above Rs.25,000/- in case the land granted for cultivation of plantation crops such as coffee plantation. 17. Sub-Rule (4-A) of Rule 11 has been inserted with effect from 21/10/1971, which states that subject to the provisions of sub-rule (4) in case where tree standing on the land granted are required by these rules, to be removed by the authorities of the Forest Department, possession of the land shall not be given until such trees are removed by the authorities of the Forest Department. The object and purpose of the said rule is though the grant is made to the grantee, possession thereof shall not be given to the grantee for a period of one year, which is the period reserved to the Forest Department to cut trees on the land granted for cultivation of plantation of crops where the value of the trees is assessed at rupees twenty five thousand. If within the period of one year or the extended period, the right is exercised by the Forest Department to cut and remove the trees, thereafter, possession shall be given to the grantee. Sub-rule (5) states that where the grantee desires that any fruit yielding trees as stated therein, standing on the land granted to him shall not be extracted or disposed of by the authorities of the Forest Department, the grantee has to pay the value of such trees assessed by the authorities of the Forest Department. 18. Sub-rule (5) states that where the grantee desires that any fruit yielding trees as stated therein, standing on the land granted to him shall not be extracted or disposed of by the authorities of the Forest Department, the grantee has to pay the value of such trees assessed by the authorities of the Forest Department. 18. The facts of the present case in light of sub-rule (2) of Rule 11 would have to be considered. As already noted, under sub-rule (2) of Rule 11, the assessment had been made in respect of both parcels of lands which had been granted. The assessment was less than rupees twenty five thousand. Therefore, sub-rule (3), (4) and (4- A) do not apply in the instant case. 19. On the other hand, in the judgment relied upon by learned A.G.A., in case of Adiveppa Babappa Hulasera, it was held that possession ought not to have been granted so as to make relevant provisions applicable. It was in the above context that in Paragraph Nos.9, 10 and 11, it has been stated as under:- "9. The contention of the petitioners that as the trees have not been removed within the period specified in sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 11, sub-rule (4) of Rule 11 of the Land Grant Rules comes into play and a right accrues to the grantee to seek permission to cut and remove the trees after payment of market value of the trees as assessed by the authorities of the Forest Department cannot be accepted. The grant of land does not cover and does not amount to the grant of ownership of the trees standing on the land granted. The State continues to be the owner of the trees. Of course, sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 11 of the Land Grant Rules prescribe a time limit for cutting and removing the trees standing on the granted land. Sub-rule 4(a) further makes it clear that until the trees are removed, the possession should not be handed over. The State continues to be the owner of the trees. Of course, sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 11 of the Land Grant Rules prescribe a time limit for cutting and removing the trees standing on the granted land. Sub-rule 4(a) further makes it clear that until the trees are removed, the possession should not be handed over. In view of the specific injunction contained in sub-rule 4(a) of Rule 11 of the Land Grant Rules not to deliver possession of the land granted in case where trees standing on the land granted are required by the Rules to be removed by the Authorities of the Forest Department, it is not at all open to the granting authority to deliver possession of such land until such trees are removed by the authorities of the Forest Department. If the Forest Department is not in a position to remove the trees within the specified time, the State Government has power to extend the time. In the instant case, there are trees standing on the lands granted which are required to be removed by the authorities of the Forest Department. As such possession of the lands in question should not have been delivered without removing the trees. Therefore, one thing is clear in the instant case that the possession of the lands granted to the petitioners should not have been delivered without removing the trees. Even then, the petitioners do not get a right to cut and remove the trees unless they are sold to them on payment of the value of such trees as assessed by the authorities of the Forest Department with reference to the prevailing market value. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 11 of the Land Grant Rules only comes into operation in case the authorities of the Forest Department are not able to cut and remove the trees as per sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 11 of the Land Grant Rules. That does not mean that the Forest Department will lose their authority to cut and remove the trees after the expiry of the period mentioned in sub-rules (2) and (3) of Rule 11 of the Land Grant Rules. It is open to them either to cut and remove the trees by themselves or sell the same to the grantees on payment of such value as assessed by them with reference to the prevailing market-rate. It is open to them either to cut and remove the trees by themselves or sell the same to the grantees on payment of such value as assessed by them with reference to the prevailing market-rate. No such thing has happened as yet inasmuch as the market value of the trees has not been assessed and the petitioners have not been asked to pay the same. Of course, Respondents 1 and 2 ought to have taken steps immediately in the matter when the land is granted for agricultural purpose, to cut and remove the trees as otherwise the very object of the grant of land would be defeated and the grantee would be deprived of the right of cultivation of the land. 10. Under these circumstances, the only direction that can be issued to the authorities of the Forest Department, namely, respondents 1 and 2, either to cut and remove the trees standing on the land granted to the petitioners within a specified period or to assess the value of the trees with reference to the prevailing market rate and on payment of such amount by the grantees, permit them to cut and remove the trees. 11. The contention of the petitioners that the application Annexure-F is also an application under sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Trees Act and as no decision has been communicated within a period of one year from the date of the application, the permission to cut and remove the trees must be deemed to have been granted by the Tree Officer cannot also be accepted. Unless the authorities of the Forest Department assess the market value with reference to the prevailing market rate and the petitioners pay the same, no right accrues to the petitioners to cut and remove the trees standing on the lands granted to them. It is only when such right accrues, the question of making an application under Section 8 of the Trees Act for permission to cut and remove the trees will arise. In the instant case, the petitioners have not yet acquired such a right. Even if an application is made without a right being accrued to them to cut and remove the trees, such an application will have no value in the eye of law. In the instant case, the petitioners have not yet acquired such a right. Even if an application is made without a right being accrued to them to cut and remove the trees, such an application will have no value in the eye of law. That being so, the petitioners are not entitled to take advantage of the deeming provision and contend that permission to cut and remove the trees is deemed to have been granted." (underlining by us) 20. But in the instant case, the facts are distinct and clear. There was an assessment made under sub-rule (2) of Rule 11 as applicable and the value of the assessed trees in respect of both parcels of lands granted to the respondent was less than rupees twenty five thousand. Intimation was given to the respondent to pay the said amount and on payment, the said trees have been sold to the grantee. Once the trees are sold to the grantee, it becomes the property of the grantee and the only condition that has to be complied with by the grantee is to seek transport permission after cutting the trees for the purpose of removal of the trees. The said condition was complied with when permission was sought in the instant case. At that stage, a reassessment of the trees cut by the respondent was sought to be made by placing reliance on the fact that the earlier assessment was only a tentative one. If the same was tentative, then there could not have been a sale of the trees to the respondent grantee in the year 1985 and 1988. On the other hand, the assessment was made then and an intimation was given to pay the amount assessed regarding value of the trees on the lands granted and the same having been paid, all that had to be considered by the authorities was grant of transport permit for transportation of the timber. At that stage, the authorities could not have ventured to seek reassessment of the value of the trees. It is needless to observe that once the value of the trees had been assessed and a demand of their value was made and paid, there was a transfer of the ownership of the trees from the State and its authorities to the grantee. It is needless to observe that once the value of the trees had been assessed and a demand of their value was made and paid, there was a transfer of the ownership of the trees from the State and its authorities to the grantee. Subsequently, the authorities had no right to reassess the value of the trees as and when the grantee sought permission to transport the trees which had been cut as the trees no longer belonged to the State and its authorities. What was necessary to ascertain was whether any tree, which had been reserved by the State and its authority at the time of grant of land, was cut or not. The said aspect only had to be considered at the time of granting permit. But in the instant case, in the impugned order dated 11/10/2012 (Annexure "H") a direction has been issued that the amount of Rs.5,32,895/- which was deposited by the respondent pursuant to interim order dated 03/04/1998 passed in W.P.No.11048/1998 to be adjusted towards removal of trees. There is no provision under the rules for adjustment of any such amount towards removal of trees at the time of issuance of transport permit. That apart, the said amount was paid pursuant to an interim order passed by this Court. But the same cannot be the differential value of the trees, as there does not arise calculation/assessment of any differential value with regard to the trees on the lands granted once the trees have been sold to the grantee as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 11. 21. In the circumstances, learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the order dated 11/10/2012 passed at Annexure "H" and directed the authorities to refund a sum of Rs.5,32,895/- deposited by the respondent pursuant to an interim order passed by this Court in W.P.No.11048/1998 on 03/04/1998. 22. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and there is no merit in the appeal. Appeal is hence, dismissed. Parties to bear the respective costs. It is needless to observe that there would be compliance of the aforesaid direction by the appellants as the respondent has been deprived of the said amount since the year 03/04/1998. 22. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and there is no merit in the appeal. Appeal is hence, dismissed. Parties to bear the respective costs. It is needless to observe that there would be compliance of the aforesaid direction by the appellants as the respondent has been deprived of the said amount since the year 03/04/1998. The refund of amount with accrued interest as stated in the impugned order shall be made to the respondent within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A.No.I/2019 stands disposed.