- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned single Judge of the Karnataka High Court allowing the appeal filed by the respondents. Plaintiffs, who are the respondents in the present appeal filed a Suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,47,965. 20 on the ground that being owners of the Trees which were transported to the Government godown on the basis of the permission granted by the present appellants, the value of the Trees has to be paid by the government. The case of the plaintiff, as culled out from the averments in the plaint is that they are the owners of the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs and their predecessor had drown silver wood, jungle wood and other varieties of trees in the schedule land by spending lot of money and had cultivated the said land with coffee crop. In order to regulate the shade in the schedule property and also for cutting and felling of silver wood, jungle wood and other trees, the plaintiffs had applied for permission for cutting and felling of the silver wood, jungle wood and other trees. Before granting the felling permission of the said trees, a joint survey was carried out by the forest authorities as well as the revenue surveyors. Thereafter, the second defendant granted permission for felling of the trees situated in the schedule properties. In terms of the permission, the plaintiffs cut and felled the trees. While issuing the transport permit to the plaintiffs, the second defendant had directed issuance of transport permit for a portion of the trees and ordered to transfer 1050 CFT of timber valued at Rs. 1,31,250/- to an earmarked forest depot. The firewood of 22-1/2 meters valued at Rs. 10,000/- was also transported to the same depot. Therefore, the claim was made that the plaintiffs are entitled to the value of the Timber @ Rs. 125/- per CFT and At rs. 150/- per CFT at the prevailing rates. Defendants took the stand that the permission was conditional and there was never any challenge to the conditional permission granted. After having accepted the permission with the conditions stipulated, it was not open to the plaintiffs to lay a claim for the value of the trees. The Trial Judge dismissed the Suit, inter alia, holding that in the absence of a challenge to the conditional permission, there was no question of the plaintiff's making a claim for value of the timber transported.
(3.) AN appeal was filed before the High Court, which, by the impugned judgment, accepted the stand of the plaintiffs. For granting relief to the plaintiffs, i. e. the present respondents, reliance was placed on certain judgments of the High Court where it was held that in respect of reserved trees, the ownership was not with the Government but was with the owner of the land. Accordingly, as noted above, the appeal was allowed. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the grant of permission was governed by the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act, 1976 (in short 'the Act' ). Permission is required for felling of all trees irrespective of whether they are situated in private or in government land. The permission undisputedly is subject to the stipulated conditions. There is a provision for preferring an appeal in case of refusal to grant permission. The permission was granted on 30. 3. 1999 and there was a specific condition which stipulated that 27 trees of a particular variety which are reserved trees are to be transported to the Government Nata warehouse after felling. There was no challenge to the order in this regard. Since the conditions were not challenged, the High court should not have granted relief to the respondents-plaintiffs relying on certain decisions which were rendered in different context and had no application to the facts of the present case.;