Rajendra H R vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 3843 Kant

                             1

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

   DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

                        BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

       WRIT PETITION NO.18781 OF 2021(GM-FOR)
BETWEEN:

RAJENDRA H R,
SON OF SRI.RAMDAS NAIK,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
R/O 16/1. MIC 1ST CROSS,
KHB COLONY, SOPPINA GUDDA,
THIRTHAHALLI - 577 432.
                                              ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K SREEDHAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
   REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
   FOREST DEPARTMENT,
   VIKAS SOUDHA, VIDHANA VEEDHI,
   DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
   BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,
   SHIMOGA - 577 201.

3. ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FOREST,
   AZAD ROAD,
   THIRTHAHALLI - 577 432.

4. RANGE FOREST OFFICER,
   THIRTHAHALLI RANGE,
   THIRTHAHALLI - 577 432
                                            ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR, AGA)

       THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-4
TO GRANT PERMISSION TO FELL THE TREES STANDING IN
THE LAND BELONGING TO THE PETITIONER IN SURVEY
NO.41     OF   HOSAKODIGE        VILLAGE,   KASABA   HOBLI,
                                   2

THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT AS PER
JOINT SURVEY REPORT OF REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND
FOREST DEPARTMENT AND                 ALSO    ON   THE    BASIS OF
REVENUE RECORDS SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.

       THIS     PETITION     COMING     ON     FOR   PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-


                               ORDER

The short grievance of the petitioner is as to non-

consideration of his request for permission of felling the

trees in question; learned counsel for the petitioner

vehemently submits that he consideration of the request

has not taken place with one or the other pretext; he also

points out from the notice dated 02.11.220 at Annexure-L

that the third respondent Assistant Conservator of Forests

(for short 'ACF' hereafter) has directed personal

appearance of the Tahsildar to assist in the process of

consideration and this is unjustified.

2. After service of notice, the respondents having

entered appearance through the learned AGA oppose the

writ petition contending that the request for felling of the

trees cannot be readily granted; the Apex Court in T.N.

GODAVARMAN THIRUMULKPAD VS. UNION OF INDIA &

ORS, (1997) 2 SCC 267 and in other series of decisions

therein has laid down certain parameters applicable to the

consideration of request of the kind and accordingly the

matter could be processed and decision would be made

known to the petitioner. This is fair enough.

3. Learned AGA graciously & rightly submits that

the third respondent- ACF would not have directed the

personal appearance of the Tahsildar for the participation

in the proceedings of the kind; since it is not a case of trial

by jury; the parameters of enquiry are already indicted by

the Apex Court; there was absolutely no warrant for the

third respondent - ACF to direct personal appearance of

the Tahsildar at all; although he can summon the records.

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is

disposed off directing the third respondent to consider

petitioner's request for the grant of permission to fell the

trees in question keeping in view the provisions of Section

8 of the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976 and the

Joint Survey Report, a copy whereof is at Annexure-E.

This exercise shall be accomplished within a period

of eight weeks from the date a copy of this judgment is

handed to the answering respondent; failing which, the

third respondent -ACF shall pay to the petitioner a cost of

Rs.5,000/- per day of delay brooked; he shall also inform

the petitioner the result of such consideration, forthwith.

All contentions are kept open.

Now, no costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Bsv