A. Basavarajappa Vs. Tahsildar, Davanagere and ors.

- karnataka forest act, 1963.[k.a. no. 5/1964].confiscation of vehicle: [k.l. manjunath, j] writ petition against seizure of vehicle illegally transporting timber amounting to violation of provision of forest act order of the authorised officer to confiscate the truck direction to consider the market value of the vehicle through a proper valuer and confiscate 1/4th of its value to the government and return the remaining sum to the respondent/owner held, when once the vehicle is confiscated, the entire value of such vehicle would go to the state. the fast track court relying upon the provisions of the tripura forest act, passed the impugned order. when the tripura forest act is not applicable to the karnataka forest act, question of applying the provisions of law of different state and directing the state government to confiscate only 1/4th of the market value of the seized vehicle does not arise. impugned order was quashed. constitution of india -- article 226: [k.l. manjunath, j] writ petition against seizure of vehicle illegally transporting timber amounting to violation of provision of forest act order of the authorised officer to confiscate the truck direction to consider the market value of the vehicle through a proper valuer and confiscate 1/4th of its value to the government and return the remaining sum to the respondent/owner held, when once the vehicle is confiscated, the entire value of such vehicle would go to the state. the fast track court relying upon the provisions of the tripura forest act, passed the impugned order. when the tripura forest act is not applicable to the karnataka forest act, question of applying the provisions of law of different state and directing the state government to confiscate only 1/4th of the market value of the seized vehicle does not arise. impugned order was quashed. orderv. gopal gowda, j.1. since the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus, rule issued and with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties the matter is taken up for final disposal. 2. the petitioner claims to be the owner of 4.28 acres of land in survey no. 76/p of hosakundawada village in davanagere district, has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to consider his application at annexure-d to measure the land and to fix up the boundaries. his grievance is that the adjacent owners had removed the boundary stones. the first respondent-tahsildar has issued the impugned endorsement at annexure-e, dated 20-6-2001 stating that since suit in original suit no. 28 of 2001 is pending between the parties, at this stage it is not possible to consider his application under section 140(2) of the karnataka land revenue act. the petitioner is seeking to quash the said endorsement and a direction to the first respondent to consider his application at annexure-d. 3. i have perused the impugned endorsement. prima facie the reason assigned therein is contrary to section 61 of the act. it provides exclusive jurisdiction of revenue courts to determine, decide or dispose of any matter which is empowered to do so under the act and the jurisdiction of civil courts is barred. in view of this, the impugned endorsement is contrary to the statutory provision and liable to be quashed. 4. the writ petition is allowed and the impugned endorsement at annexure-e is quashed. the first respondent is directed to take, consider and dispose of the application of the petitioner at annexure-d within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.