IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JUNE 1998 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE M.F. SALDANHA W,P. 14361/1996 BETWEEN Chandrashekar, s/of. Sangappa Panashet ty, age: 60 yrs. Riof.Panashetti Galli Jamakhand i Dist: Bijapur PETITIONER <By Sri Ravi S. Balikai, Adv..) AND 1. The Tahsildar (Land Reforms) Jamakhandi, Dist: Biiapur 2 The Chairman the Land Tribunal Jamakhand i Dist: Bijapur 3. Shairu Kushaba Savant Jadhav, major, rIof.Bidari, Tat: Jamkhandi, fist: Biiapur RESPONDENTS (Smt. MR. Shanthakumari, HCGP for R.1 & R2) Memorandum of writ petition is filed under .226 & 227 of the Constitution praying that Court be pleased to quash vide Annex.A dt 96 by R—1 etc. Writ petition coming on for prly. hearing is day, the Court made the following ORDER.. 4 2 ORDER I have heard the petitieners learned advocate and the learned Govt., Advocate . The petitioners learned advocate points out to me that the facts and records are undisputed in so far as there were 183 fully grown Babul tree on the land in dispute and the petitioner had applied for valuation of these trees in keeping with the provisions of the Act. Not only was an incorrect evaluation done but when the petitioner agitated the matter the Taheildar passed a cryptic /baring/ order that since the trees were not fruit/trees that they have no value. It is this order that has been assailed. I am in agreement with the petitioner’s learned counsel when he points out that if by operation of law the petitioner is entitled to the value of the trees that he cannot be technically deprived of his rightful tiement merely because of some misguided Liar that has been issued by one of the t departments. The provisions of the Act ide any such circular. The learned counsel demonstrates to me that with the passage of 4 3 time the petitioner is seriously prejudiced because had he received a fair amount at the point /heerj/ of time when it ought to have/paid to him, that he would have not been put to the loss which would accrue to him today if a revaluation js done and some money is paid. He is right when he points out to me that the petitioner should not be subjected to financial loss because of delays that have been occasioned by the department. 2. The learned Govt. Advocate sought to justify the order on the ground that the Govt. circular fully justifies the order in question. I am unable to uphold this argument because the petitioner s right cannot be defeated by any such circular. At the same time it is necessary for this Court to bear in mind the fact that the petitioner should not be visited with any undue loss. To my mind if the escalation in the price of tA timber is taken into account the petitioner would be sufficiently compensated as the passage of time is more than off-set by the rise in ices. It is however necessary that the titioner gets his dues within a reasonable timea/ 4 in order to enure that the following directions are issued:— a) The R.F.O. , Jamkhandi is hereby directed to survey the 183 trees in Revenue Survey No. 44/2B, evaluate the correct market value and issue an auction notice for disposal of the timber in question. The respondent—3 shall be permitted to participate in the auction. The R.F.O. shall fix the reserve price at a figure not less than the value of th3 yield from the trees and once the highest bid is obtained the respondent—3 shall be given the option in writing of depositing the amount with the department within a period of 1 days - If the respondent—3 declines to do or ter having agreed fails to do so within the stipulated period, the bid amount shall be collected, the timber shall be disposed of and the proceeds shall be paid over to the petitioner. This procedure shall be completed within an outer limit four months from today. 3. The impugned order is accordingly set The petition is allowed. In the of the case, there shall be no order It is made clear, that the costs. 5 order prohibiting respondent—3 lram either cutting or in any manner interfering with the trees shall continue until the aforesaid procedure is completed Sd/ JUDGE 136/-