1. The petitioners in these writ petitions are interested in certain trees which are standing on sagu lands situated in the Dist. of Coorg, either as owners of the lands in question or as purchasers of the said trees from to owners of the lands. The lands in question are redeemed lands. The owners are in lawful possession of the lands paying the assessment payable in respect of the lands to the State Government.
2. The claim of the petitioners in these writ petitions is that they are entitled to cut and remove the timber standing on the lands in question without paying their value or any other amount to the State Govt.
3. Principally their claim is based on S. 75 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
4. In the common statement of objections filed in these cases by the State Govt. the fact that the owners of the lands ape in lawful posssesion thereof is not disputed. What is however pleaded is that the right of the Owners of the lands to the trees standing thereon is dependent upon the terms of the grant under which the lands were granted by the Govt. to the predecessors-in-interest of the present holders and that the said question being a mixed question of law and fact, cap be more conveniently disposed of in a suit to be instituted by the petitioners. It is, therefore, prayed that these writ petitions should be rejected. I do not think that the questions that arise for determination in these petitions are of that nature which would require the petitioners to institute a suit, as I am of the view that these cases can be disposed of on the basis of the admissions made by the parties.
5. Sec. 75(1) of the Act on which reliance is placed by the petitioners reads as follows:
“75. Right to trees in villages, to which survey settlement has been introduced * * *”
6. As observed by the, Supreme Court in State of Mysore v. M.M Thammayya(1), by Section 75(1) of the Act the right of the State Govt. to all trees in any land shall be deemed to have been conceded to the occupant except in regard to the trees reserved by the State Govt. or by any Survey Officer whether by express order made at or about the time of such settlement or by notification made and published at or any time after such settlement. When once it is either admitted or established that a, parson is an occupant of a land, he would become entitled to all the trees standing thereon unless it is shown by the State Govt. that there has been a reservation in respect of any of the trees by the State Govt. or by any Survey Officer at the time of the settlement or by a notification made and published at any time after such settlement. In these cases it is not disputed that there has been a settlement in respect of the lands.
7. The expression ‘occupant’ is defined by sub-sec. (20) of S. 2 of the Act as a holder in actual occupation of any unalienated land other than a tenant. Under the Explanation given to sub-sec. (20), a holder or a landholder in the Coorg Disit is deemed to be an occupant of such land for purposes of the Act. The expression ‘to hold land’ is defined in sub-sec. (11) of S. 2 as to be in lawful possession of land whether such possession is actual or not. As already mentioned, the owners of the lands in question have been paying assessment to the State Govt. are it is not contended that their possession is not an authorised one. The owners of the lands in question, who are the petitioners herein, have therefore, to be held as the occupants under the Act. From the extracts of the revenue records produced in these cases, it is seen that the lands in question are shown as redeemed lands. The sagu lands in the Dist. of Coorg were classified into two categories under the Rules made under the Coorg Land and Revenue Regulations, 1899. Wherever the holder of the land had paid for the trees standing on sagu lands, the lands were treated as redeemed lands and wherever such payment had not been made, they were treated as unredeemed lands. In view of the fact that the lands in question are redeemed lands it has to be held that the owners of the lands had actually paid for the trees standing on the lands even before the Act came into force, lit hap, therefore, to be, presumed that the Govt. had not made any reservation with regard to any of the trees standing on the lands in question. That apart the State Govt. has not placed before the Court any material to show that the State Govt. had made any reservation in respect of the right to trees standing on the lands of that at or about the time of the settlement the Survey Officer had made an express order with regard to the right of the trees or that a notification had been issued after the settlement by the State Govt. making reservation with regard to the rights of the trees standing on the lands. Having regard to the language used in S. 75(1) of the Act, has to be held that the burden of showing that the Govt. had retained any right in the trees standing on the lands is on the Govt. because in the absence of such proof, the occupant should be presumed to be the owner of the trees. On the material available in these cases, it is not possible to hold that the Govt. had retained any right or interest in the trees standing on the lands belonging to the petitioners which are the subject matter of these proceedings. Hence the question of the petitioners paying any amount to the, State Govt. by way of value of the trees standing on the land which they propose to, cut and remove would not arise. The respondents, are, therefore, directed to forebear from insisting upon payment of any sum by way of value of the trees in question before issuing passes to cut and remove the said trees either to the owners of the land or to persons who have purchased the trees from them. The Divisional Forest Officer is further directed to issue passes to the petitioner or the purchasers of the trees standing on the lands in question, as the case may be, to cut and remove, the trees without insisting upon the payment of any amount by way of value of the trees. A writ shall issue accordingly in each of these cases to the respondents.
8. The petitions are accordingly allowed. No costs.
9. The bank guarantee or the security furnished by each of the petitioner in these cases pursuant to the interim order made earlier, stands discharged.