Tag Archives: Biligeri Village – Madikeri Taluk

Karnataka High Court orders forest dept to refund Rs 4.33 lakh to Kodagu landowner 

Agriculture, Business & Economy, Records, All, , , , , , , , , ,

Justice Suraj Govindaraj ruled that the state cannot exploit a mistake made by a citizen in categorising the land as ‘sagu bane land’ when it was, in fact, alienated ‘sagu bane land’, and retain the deposited amount.

Representative image showing a forest./ Credit: DH Photo

Bengaluru:

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Forest Department to refund Rs 4.33 lakh, along with 6 per cent interest, to the legal heirs of a Kodagu landowner, Mahabaleshwar Bhat, who had deposited the amount in 1982.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj ruled that the state cannot exploit a mistake made by a citizen in categorising the land as ‘sagu bane land’ when it was, in fact, alienated ‘sagu bane land’, and retain the deposited amount.

Bhat, who owned 38.5 acres in Biligeri Village, Madikeri taluk, Kodagu district, had received permission on February 1, 1983, to cut 349 trees on the property. He subsequently paid Rs 4,33,082, the assessed value of the trees. However, he later realised that the land had been classified as alienated ‘sagu bane land’ since 1897, making the payment unnecessary.

Bhat requested a refund from the authorities, but his plea was rejected by the Forest Department on April 25, 2012, citing the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, as grounds for denial. After the department’s appellate authority also dismissed his appeal, Bhat moved the high court.

During the pendency of the case, Bhat passed away and his legal representatives were substituted as petitioners in 2023. The court found that the Forest Department failed in its duty to verify the land’s classification.

“In fact, it was for the assistant and chief conservator of forest to verify these from the records concerned and not go by the statement made by the petitioner himself. Whenever any application is filed by any person claiming permission to cut trees, there is a duty imposed on the authority granting such permission to verify the details. If at all the details had been verified, it would have been clear that the land in question is alienated ‘sagu bane land’ and not un-alienated ‘sagu bane land’.

This aspect has been made clear by the deputy commissioner in his order dated March 29, 2010,” Justice Suraj Govindaraj said.

source: http://www.deccanherald.com / Deccan Herald / Home> India> Karnataka / by Subarna Mukherjee , DH Web Desk / January 03rd, 2025

High Court faults forest authorities for refusing to refund amount deposited by land owner while seeking permission to cut trees 

Agriculture, Records, All, , , , , , ,

It is the duty of the forest authorities to verify official records before allowing applications seeking permission to cut trees, the High Court of Karnataka has said, while finding fault with the authorities for refusing to refund the amount deposited by a land owner by mistake, though he was not required to deposit it while seeking permission to cut trees on his land.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj passed the order while allowing a petition filed by N. Mahabaleshwara Bhat, a resident of Biligeri village in Madikeri taluk of Kodagu district.

The petitioner, who died during the pendency of petition filed in 2016, deposited ₹4.33 lakh with the forest authorities to seek permission to cut several trees on his Sagu Bane land.

However, he realised later that his was alienated Sagu Bane land for which there was no need to deposit money, and hence he requested the authorities to refund the deposited amount. But the forest authorities rejected his request, stating that he himself had described his land as Sagu Bane land in his application.

Negating the contention of the authorities, the court said that it was for the Assistant Conservator of Forest and the Chief Conservator of Forest to verify nature of the land from the records and not to go by the statement made in the application.

If at all the details of the land had been verified by the forest authorities, it would have been clear that the land in question was alienated Sagu Bane land as this aspect was made clear by the Deputy Commissioner in his order passed in 2010, the court said, while stating that there was a duty imposed on the authority to very the records before granting such permissions.

source: http://www.thehindu.com / The Hindu / Home> News> India> Karnataka / by The Hindu Bureau / January 03rd, 2024