Civil Appeals Nos
1867 1924 1952 of 1975 and 9 to 66 of 1976
From the Judgments and orders dated the 18 4 75 28 4 75 and 27 5 75 of the Mysore Karnataka High Court in Writ Appeal Nos
1034 103974 and 116 to 14375 951 74 922 92374 3275 1035 of 1974 and 976 to 103374 respectively
L N Sinha Sol
General in CA No 1891 and 1952 for the appellants in CAs
1867 1924 and Respondent in CA 195275 and KS Puttaswamy 1st Addl
Government Advocate In Cas
1867 1924 and 195275 B R G K Achar
section G Sundaraswamy K section Gourishanker and K N Bhatt for the Appellants in CAs
195275 and Respondents in CA 189175
L N Sinha Sol
General in CA 9 K section Puttaswamy Asstt
Government Advocate Narayan Netter and B R G K Achar for the Appellants in CAs 9 to 66 of 1976
section V Gupta In CA 189075 section section Javali and B P Singh for Respondents in CAs
1875 to 79 1882 83 1885 1887 90 1893 1895 1897 1902 08 1909 1910 1912 1914 1917 1920 1923 2475 and for R 2 in CAs
1867 1874 1880 81 1884 1889 1901 1903 1906 07 and 192175 and for Respondent in Appeals Nos 9 13 18 20 21 39 44 54 56 58 60 63 and for Respondent No 1 in Cas 19 22 23 37 43 46 51 55 59 65 and Respondent No 2 in CAs 38 of 1975
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY CJ
These appeals are by certificate from the judgment dated 18 April 1975 of the High Court of Karnataka
The respondents were the petitioners in the High Court
The respondents are either holders of Bane lands in the District of Coorg or holders of such lands who purchased timber standing on them from such holders
The respondents in the High Court asked for writ directing the Divisional Forest officer of the State to issue permits to the respondents to remove trees standing on Bane lands as particularised in the petition
1090 The Divisional Forest Officer refused permits to the respondents to cut trees and remove timber
The two grounds on which the respondents challenged the order of refusal are these
First the respondents claimed a vested right to redeem the trees on Bane lands on payment of 50 per cent of the value of timber under Coorg Land and Revenue Regulation of 1899 and the rules framed thereunder
Second the respondents claimed that by section 75 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 an absolute right was conferred on them in respect of trees on Bane lands and the Government have no right even to demand 50 per cent of the value
The learned Single Judge referred to the provisions of Coorg Land and Revenue Regulation of 1899 and in particular rule 97 thereof
The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that rules conferred a right on the holders of Bane land to redeem the trees standing on such Bane lands
He also held that under the rules the respondents were required to pay 50 per cent of the value of the timber to the State along with other incidental charges
The contention of the State that the Coorg Land and Revenue Regulation 1899 was repealed and therefore the respondents had no right under those Regulations to remove timber was repelled by the learned Single Judge
The learned Judge held that section 202 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act of 1964 did not affect the right acquired by the holders of Bane lands in spite of repeal of the Coorg Land and Revenue Regulation of 1899
In this view of the matter the learned Single Judge did not consider it necessary to express any opinion on the second contention of the respondents whether under section 75 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act of 1964 the State had no right to demand 50 per cent of the value
The Division Bench on appeal held that the respondents could be divided into two categories
As to the first category the Division Bench in sub paragraph 1 of paragraph 59 of the judgment said that those who deposited before 15 January 1974 50 per cent of the value of timber as determined by the Divisional Forest officer could be granted permits to cut and remove timber
If there was any difference between the 50 per cent of the actual value of timber and the amount paid on the basis of determination by the Divisional Forest officer the Divisional Forest officer would recover the difference as mentioned in the said paragraph 591
In sub paragraph 2 of paragraph 59 the Division Bench dealt with respondents who did not fall within category 1 but made applications before 15 January 1974
The Solicitor General appearing for the State with his usual fairness said that he did not want to take up time of the Court in going into the merits of the appeals
He accepted the conclusions of the High Court in paragraph 59 of the judgment
The result is that the conclusions of the High Court in paragraph 59 are affirmed
The matter however does not end there because counsel for the respondents submitted that the Division Bench went into the nature and tenure of Bane lands and expressed views which are not correct 1091 and which in any event were not necessary for the purpose of the present case
The learned Single Judge rightly did not express any view on the second question as to whether the Bane land holders could ask for removal of trees without payment of full value
The Division Bench however in paragraphs 16 and 20 dealt with the legal position of Bane lands prior to 1 November 1899 in paragraph 30 on the legal position between 1 November 1899 and 1 April 1964 and in paragraphs 36 and 43 on the legal position after 1 April 1964
The Division Bench of the High Court in paragraphs 17 and 19 of the judgment dealt with Bane and Kumki lands and equated the same
It may be stated here that one of the respondents Consolidated Coffee Ltd also filed an appeal from the judgment of the High Court
The Solicitor General contended that the Consolidated Coffee Ltd was not competent to file an appeal because the company had obtained relief and could not therefore attack the judgment
Having heard the Solicitor
General and counsel for the respondents we are of opinion that the course adopted by the learned Single Judge was correct
The Division Bench of the High Court need not have gone into the question on the nature and tenure of Bane lands and expressed opinion on rights of the parties
These observations were not necessary
We therefore hold that we affirm the conclusions of the Division Bench of High Court as stated in paragraph 59 of the judgment and make it clear that the observations and opinions expressed by the Division Bench on the nature and tenure of Bane lands and rights of the parties will not bind the parties on these questions in future
It will be open to both parties namely the appellants and respondents to urge their rival contentions on these questions if in future there will be any dispute between the parties
The directions given by the Division Bench in paragraph 59 of the judgment will be followed by the parties
The directions are explicable because of 15 January 1974 being taken as the dividing line with regard to persons who made payment and persons who did not make payment consequent upon the repeal of Rule 137 of the Karnataka Forest Rule 1969
The appeals are dismissed
Parties will pay and bear their own costs
SR Appeals dismissed


Summary:
Bane lands are forest lands granted for the service of the Warg holding rice fields to which they are allotted to be held free of revenue for grazing leaf manurefirewood and for timber required in the Warg capable of being alienated only along with the Warg lands us 97 of the Coorg Land and Revenue Regulation 1899 which is in pari materia with Rule 151 A and B made under the Indian Forest Rules 1954
The holders of the Bane Land had the right to redeem the trees standing on such Bane lands subject to the payment of seignorage etc
Under Rule 137 of the Karnataka Forest Rules 1969 effective from 1st March 1969 redemption of the growth on Bane lands was allowed on payment of 50 of the value of the timber
Rule 137 was however deleted wef 15th January 1974
The various appellants who were holders of Bane Lands challenged under article 226
the orders of the Forest authorities demanding full value of the timber sought to be redeemed by them contending that i they had vested right to redeem the trees on Bane lands on payment of 50 of the value of timber under the Coorg Land and Revenue Regulations of 1899 and ii Section 75 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964 vested in them an absolute right in respect of the trees on Bane lands and the Government therefore had no right even to demand 50 of the value
All the writs were accepted by the Mysore High Court following its earlier decision in ILR Karnataka 1975 Vol 25 p 443 Ramaraju Naidu vs Divl
Forest officer holding that the Rules conferred a right on the holders of Bane lands to redeem the trees standing on such lands on payment of 50 of the value of the timber to the State along with other incidental charges
The court did not express any opinion whether the State had no right to demand 50 of the value under the Karnataka and Revenue Act of 1964
Allowing the State appeal against ILR Karnataka 1975 Vol
25 page 443 the Division Bench held in State of Karnataka vs Ramaraju Naidu ILR Karnataka 1975 Vol
25 p 1361 that i the Bane holders had no propriety right to the soil of Bane Land and to the trees standing thereon but only limited privilege to collect grass leaves timber etc
for domestic purposes ii Even after section 751 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act was enacted the Bane holders did not become holders or occupants as defined in the Act and ownership of trees did not accrue to them and iii Section 79 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act which preserved the preexisting privileges of Bane holders has no application to Bane lands
Keeping 15 1 74 the date of deletion of Rule 137 of the Karnataka Forest Rules 1969 the Division Bench however directed that 1 the respondents who deposited before 15th January 1974 50 of the value of timber as determined by the Forest officer could be granted permits to cut and remove timber with liberty to the Forest officer to recover and any differential amount between the 50 of the actual value of timber and amount paid on the basis of prior determination and ii those respondents who have made applications under rule 137 before 15th January 1974 but not deposited the amount could also be granted permits on deposit of 50 of the value of timber
Dismissing the State appeals by certificate the court  HELD 1 The learned single judge in ILR Karnataka 1975 Vol
25 p 443 rightly did not express any view on the second question as to whether 1089 the Bane Land holders could ask for removal of trees without payment full of value us 75 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act 1964
1091A Ramaraju Naidu vs Divl
Forest Officer ILR Karnataka 1975 Vol
25 p 443 partly affirmed
ii The directions given by the Division Bench are explicable because of 15th January 1974 being taken as the dividing line with regard to persons who made payments and persons who did not make payment consequent upon the repeal of Rule 137 of the Karnataka Forest Rules 1969
109lF Their Lordships left open to the parties to urge their rival contentions on the questions of the nature and terms of Bane lands and right if in future there will be any dispute between them in view of their making clear that the observations and opinions of the High Court Division Bench should not operate as res judicata