Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: preservation of trees act 1976 section 21 power to compound offences Page 1 of about 1,054 results (0.133 seconds)

Ranji Cariappa Vs. State of Karnataka

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1993KAR3321; 1994(1)KarLJ146

..... the said order reads as follows :'in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 21 of the karnataka preservation of trees act, 1976 (karnataka act 76 of 1976), the government of karnataka hereby empowers the tree officer with the powers specified in clause (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) of the said section, to the extent ..... superior administrative power vested in the state government. however, this power cannot cut down the generality of the power given to the tree officer under section 21 of the act when the said tree officer proceeds to compound any offence. therefore, i am of the view that the impugned order cannot be sustained when it says ..... of the subject matter. section 21(1)(a) is very clear when it says that the tree officer may compound any offence under the act. therefore, while empowering the tree officer, if the state government reduces the power of the tree officer to compound any offence with reference to the value of the subject matter that would .....

P.K. Abdul Zaleel Vs. State of Karnataka Represented by Its Secretary ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2006KAR1756; 2006(3)KarLJ104

..... court and this court in the aforesaid writ petition had ordered for release of the felled trees as per law. but he did not get the trees released by paying its value as per section 21 of the karnataka preservation of trees act, 1976 ('the act'). subsequently, the tree officer has passed the order impugned herein for recovery of rs. 1,64,306/- against ..... release of any property seized or liable to confiscation on payment of its value as estimated by such officer. there is no compulsion under the act for an offender to get the unauthorisedly felled trees released. it is left to him to seek for release of the property. only if the offender seeks for its release, then he shall ..... no further proceedings shall he taken against such offender or property.7. on a reading of section 21 of the act, it cannot be said that it authorises the state government to confer power on a tree officer to recover the loss suffered by the government as a result of the offender failing to get the unauthorisedly felled .....

Jose Chake Manakattu Vs. the Tree Officer and Deputy Conservator of Fo ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1989Kant189; 1988(1)KarLJ380

..... , 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. ..... 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 .....

Divisional Forest Officer Malayattoor and Others Vs. P.M. Jalal and An ...

Court : Kerala

..... , etc, and mentioned in the kerala preservation of trees act, 1986 (act 35 of 1986) in the land shall be accounted and preserved by forest department . evidently, the assignment order refers to the preservation of trees act, though the pattayam does not refer to that act. however, both the documents denote the trees as forest trees . the preservation of trees act does not define forest tree . it defines only tree under section 2(e) with reference ..... to the specific species of trees mentioned therein. the trees mentioned therein are sandal wood, teak, rosewood, irul, thempavu, kampakam, chempakam .....

Shruti Co-Operative Group Housing Society vs.govt. Of Nct of Delhi & A ...

Court : Delhi

..... alia, impugning an order dated 27.03.2012 (hereafter the impugned order ) passed by the deputy conservator of the forests, government of nct of delhi acting as a 'tree officer' under the delhi preservation of trees act, 1994 (hereafter the act ) whereby a compounding fee of `4,50,000/- has been imposed on the petitioner society for illegal felling of ..... had been pruned at a height of 15 ft. is disputed; however, even if it is accepted that the said trees were pruned, the same would not constitute an offence under the delhi preservation of trees act, 1994. he also referred to a circular dated 26.08.2016 issued by the department of forest and wildlife, government ..... not reflect any material to establish the offence in respect of the trees that had been pruned, is persuasive. the expression to fell a tree is defined under section 2(h) of the delhi preservation of trees act, 1994, which reads as under:-" 2. (h) to fell a tree with its cognate expression, means serving the trunk from the roots, .....

The Government of Tamil Nadu, and ors. Vs. Tata Tea Limited, and anr.

Court : Chennai

..... manufacture of tea or domestic use in connection with the tea industry. the learned single judge negatived the prayer to declare tamil nadu hill areas (preservation of trees) act, 1955 as unconstitutional and void.2. the brief facts are that the 1st respondent company is having pachaimallai, pannimade, uralikal, velonie and valparai ..... has been declared as a private land, as per the provisions of preservation of private forest act, it attracts not only tamil nadu hill areas (preservation of trees) act, but also the forest conservation act, 1980 and tamil nadu preservation of private forest act. the learned counsel for the appellants would further submit that the learned ..... is not in much deviation from the provisions of the tamil nadu hill areas (preservation of trees) act, 1955. in our considered view, for cutting and removing of trees as per the provisions of tamil nadu hill areas (preservation of trees) act, 1955, permission in writing of the committee is mandatory.18. even though the .....

Mahadevaiah and Others Vs. the Tahsildar, Gundlupet Taluk, Mysore Dist ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1998KAR2255; 1998(4)KarLJ394

..... forest rules, referred to above but also by reason of the overriding provisions contained in section 8 of the preservation of trees act, the petitioners are not only forbidden from felling any such tree but are bound to preserve the same. since the ownership of the trees in question is in the light of section 94-a(6)(c) vested unconditionally in the state government, who ..... matter can be examined from yet another angle. the felling of trees except in accordance with the permission of the competent tree officer is prohibited by section 8 of the karnataka preservation of trees act, 1976. it provides that with effect from the appointed day, no person shall fell any tree or cause any tree to be felled in any land whether in his ownership, occupation or .....

S.B. Ganesh Vs. the Tree Officer Conservator of Forests

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2005KAR6018; 2006(1)KarLJ548

..... the area into a residential area. according to him, both respondents 1 and 2 have failed to understand the provisions of section 8 of the karnataka preservation of trees act, 1976 and therefore permission has not been granted in favour of the petitioner. he further submits that the appellate authority has not considered the other proposal ..... petitioner?6. the property in dispute is situate in a rural area and more fully specified in schedule ii of the karnataka preservation of trees act, 1976. schedule i and ii of the act reads as under:'schedule i(see section 2(i)areas comprising lands under tea, rubber or cinchona cultivation including wood-lots and ..... for a different purpose, namely it is for the purpose of formation of a lay-out. the karnataka preservation of trees act, 1976 has been enacted to provide for the preservation of trees in the state for regulating the felling of trees and for planning to restore the ecological balance and other matters connected therein. in b.m. ranji .....

N.P. Ponnappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Others

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR2000Kant384; ILR2000KAR5046; 2000(6)KarLJ84

..... that the orders made by the forest officer for releasing the seized timber only on payment of the value of the trees is erroneous and unsustainable in law and contrary to the provisions of karnataka preservation of trees act and the rules framed thereunder. secondly, it is stated that in view of the jamabandhi extracts that the petitioners had ..... what was authorised. in view of this illegal felling, the forest authorities have booked forest cases against these petitioners under the provisions of karnataka preservation of trees act and the rules framed thereunder. as the petitioners had approached the forest authorities to compound the offence in lieu of prosecution proceedings, the forest ..... therein, and further since he has cultivated coffee in the said lands, it is exempted from the purview of the karnataka preservation of trees act and the rules framed thereunder. the forest officer after obtaining the report of the revenue officer, has rejected the claim made by the petitioner .....

Joseph Vs. State of Kerala

Court : Kerala

Reported in : 2005(4)KLT504

..... intention of respondents 2 and 3. the appellant cannot impute any mala fides to a statutory function of the government under section 5 of the kerala preservation of trees act. as such, there is absolutely no merit whatsoever in the contentions of the appellant based on allegations of mala fides. this is all the more ..... this very laudable and absolutely essential object, in the present day circumstances, was sought to be achieved by the enactment of the kerala preservation of trees act, 1986. section 5 of the act which starts with the non-obstante clause 'notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or in any judgment, ..... the challenge of the appellant against ext.p9 notification issued by the 1st respondent-state of kerala under section 5 of the kerala preservation of trees act, 1986 (for short 'the act') prohibiting cutting of trees in the area referred to therein, which area was exempted from vesting under section 3(3) of the kerala private forests (vesting .....