NARAYAN Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER UTTARA KANNADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE petitions are by persons who claim that they own certain extent of private lands where there is certain tree growth and who have applied to the second respondent. Tree Officer for permission to cut and remove those trees under Section 8 of the Karnataka Preservation of Trees act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act' for short ). The applications filed by the petitioners to the Tree Officer are produced as Annexure A, B, C, D, E and F. The applications are dated 20-7-2000, 20-7-2000, 20-7-2000, 20-7-2000, 7-7-2000 and 20-7-2000 respectively. The grievance of the petitioners is that notwithstanding the applications having been made more than 1 1/2 years back, the second respondent-Tree Officer has failed to pass any orders on the same and the same has put them to considerable, difficulty and hardship in as much as the trees are getting ripe and old and are required to be felled immediately as otherwise they may lose the timber value.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Hegde Hudlamane submits that the second respondent-Tree Officer is not passing orders on their applications in view of certain circulars that have been issued by the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner, copies of which have been produced as Annexures-G, H, J, K and L to the petition. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner has no jurisdiction or authority to interfere with the functioning of the Tree Officer and to issue circulars touching upon the functioning of the Tree Officer as an Officer under the provisions of the Act and particularly for coming in the way of the Tree Officer passing orders on the applications filed before him.

(3.) ON a perusal of the circulars, it is found that the circulars have been issued by the first respondent-Deputy Commissioner in his capacity as the Deputy Commissioner of the District and for the purpose of taking suitable steps to preserve and protect the tree growth on government lands and for proper realization of the value of trees which were standing on granted lands. It Is in this context, these circulars have been issued. It cannot be said that issue of these circulars has in any way either interfered with the functioning of a Tree Officer or has the effect of supplementing the provisions of the Act.