ORDER
1. In this writ petition, the following question of law arises for consideration :
Whether a person who has cut the trees standing on his own land, in contravention of the provisions of the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act 1976 ('the Act' for short), is liable to pay the value of the trees in adition to the compounding fees payable under Cl. (a) of S. 21(l) of the Act?
2. This petition has come up for preliminary hearing after notice to the respondents. By consent of both the Counsel, it is taken up for final hearing and is disposed of by this order.
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follow. The petitioner is the owner, in possession and enjoyment of the land comprised in S. No. 103/2 measuring 8 acres 57 cents, situate at Kalmanje Village, Belthangady Taluk, Dakshina Kannada District. After securing a licence for raising rubber plantation from Rubber Board (vide Annexure-A) he cut the trees grown on the land. Fire-wood secured from cutting the trees had been stacked on the land belonging to him. S. 8(1) of the Act imposes restriction on felling of trees standing on any land whether the person concerned is the lawful owner occupier of the land. It reads :
'8. Restriction on felling of trees. -
(1) With effect on and from the appointed day, notwithstanding any custom, usage contract or law f or the time being in force, no person shall fell any tree or cause any tree to be felled in any land whether in his ownership or occupancy or otherwise, except with the previous permission of the Tree Officer.'
Sub-sec. (2) requires the person desirous of cutting tree to make an application to the Tree Officer seeking permission to cut the trees. Sub-sec. (3) thereof regulates the grant of permission. Cutting of trees without securing such permission amounts to an offence punishable under S. 22 of the Act. S. 21 of the Act, however, provides for compounding the offence. That section reads-
'Power to compound offences. -
(1) The State Government may, by order empower a Tree Officer. -
(a) to compound on payment of a sum not exceeding five thousand rupees any offence under this Act;
(b) to release any property seized or liable to confiscation, on payment of the value thereof, as estimated by such officer
(2) On the payment of such sum or such value or both, as the case may be, to such officer, if in custody, shall be released. The property, if any, seized shall be released and no further proceedings shall be taken against such offender or property.'
It is common ground that State Government, in exercise of its power under S. 21 of the Act has fixed maximum compounding fee at Rs. 5,000/- and has, authorised the Tree Officers to exercise the power of compounding.
4. In exercise of the power given to him under the Act, the Tree Officer, by his order dated 9-12-1987 (Annexure-C) called upon the petitioner to pay a compounding fee of Rs. 12,575/-. Questioning the legality of the said order the petitioner has presented this petition.
5. Sri Upadhyaya, learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that even according to Cl. (a) of S. 21 (1) of the Act, the maximum fee for compounding an offence under the Act was Rs. 5,000/- and therefore the impugned order, by which the Tree Officer has levied a compounding fee of Rs. 12,575/was without authority of law.
6. Sri Udayashankar learned Counsel for the State did not dispute that the maximum compounding fee leviable in view of S. 21(l)(a) of the Act was Rs. 5,000/-. He however submitted that the amount of Rs. 12,575/which the petitioner was called upon to pay consisted of a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards the, compounding fee and the balance was the value of the trees cut by the petitioner which he had to pay.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that, as the trees were situate on the patta land belonging to the petitioner and consequently belonged to him, there was no authority vested in the Tree Officer to collect the value of the trees from the petitioner. It is in view of this contention, the question set out first arises for consideration.
8. In order to find out the answer to the question what is to be seen is, whether S. 21 empowers the Tree Officer not only to levy the compounding fees for compounding an offence but also to collect the value of the product of the trees, even when the trees were situate on the land belonging to the person who felled the trees?
9. As can be seen from Cl. (b) of S. 21 extracted earlier, the said provision empowers the Tree Officer to release the property seized or liable for confiscation on payment of the value thereof as estimated by the Officer. This is obviously in addition to the compounding fee payable under Cl. (a) of S. 21 (1) of the Act.
10. The next question for consideration is, whether the trees cut are not liable to be seized under the provisions of the Act, on the ground, that the trees were grown on the land belonging to the petitioner. In this behalf, it is necessary to refer S. 15 of the Act. It reads :_
'Seizure of property- Where the Tree Officer has reason to believe that an offence under this Act is committed in respect of any tree, he may seize the tools and any boats, vehicles or other conveyances or animals used for the commission of the said offence along with the tree or part thereof which has been severed from the ground or the trunk, as the case may be.'
As can be seen from S. 15, the said provision authorises the Tree Officer to seize not only the vehicle and tools used for the commission of the offence but also the tree or part thereof which has been severed from the ground or trunk as the case may be, if such cutting or severing amounts to an offence under the Act. As can be seen from S .8 (1) extracted earlier, it imposes restriction on cutting of trees, whether situate on the land owned or occupied by the person concerned. The law is enacted for the purpose of preservation of trees whether they stand on the Government land or private land. According to the provisions of the Act, no tree can be cut with out permission. Therefore, once a tree is cut without permission whether it is situate on a Government land or a private land or on the land belonging to the person who has cut the trees, it makes no difference. Such an act of cutting of trees amounts to an offence. Once such an offence is committed the tree or part thereof so cut in violation of the provisions of the Act is liable to be seized under S. 15 and liable to be confiscated under S. 22 of the Act. When it is a property liable to be seized or confiscated under S. 15 or 22 of the Act, Cl. (b) of S. 21(l) of the Act gets attracted. Therefore notwithstanding the fact that the trees belonged to the person who had cut them, he is liable to pay the value of the trees estimated by the Officer. The payment of value is in the nature of additional amount to be paid for compounding the offence in addition to the compounding fee leviable under S. 21 (1)(a) of the Act.
11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner however pointed out that in the impugned order the entire amount of Rs. 12,575/- is demanded as compounding fees. A reading of the impugned order indicates that it is so. Having regard to the provisions of Cls. a and (b) of S. 21 (1) of the Act, the tree Officer, should have specified the amount of compounding fees as well as the value of product of the trees and or other property if any-seized, under S. 15 of the Act. He had not done so. On this short ground, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
12. In the result, I make the following order :
(i)The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The impugned order d/- 9-12-1987 is set aside.
(iii) A direction shall issue to the Tree Officer to pass a fresh order specifying the compounding fees and the value of the product of the trees and/or property if any seized under S. 15 separately and thereafter proceed to recover the said amount from the petitioner in accordance with law;
(iv) The Tree Officer is directed to fix the compounding fees and the value of the property after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
(v) The petitioner shall not remove the firewood collected on the land until final orders are passed by the Tree Officer.
13. Prepare a copy of this order and furnish the same to the learned Counsel for the State.
14. Petition allowed.