- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36611 WP No. 8754 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8754 OF 2025 (GM-FOR) BETWEEN: SMT. E. R. MAMATHA W/O SRI. S.V.HEMASHEKAR, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O SIDDAPURA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, SAKALESHPURA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT 573 201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MUNISWAMY GOWDA H.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST AND TREE OFFICE SAKALESHPURA ZONE, SAKALESHPURA, HASSAN 573 201. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36611 WP No. 8754 of 2025 2. ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FOREST, SAKALESHPURA SUB-DIVISION, SAKALESHPURA, HASSAN 573 201. 3. RANGE FOREST OFFICER, SAKALESHPURA RANGE, SAKALESHPURA, HASSAN 573 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.RAHUL CARIAPPA., AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION PRAYING TO THE PETITIONER IS THE OWNER OF THE TREES SEIZUED UNDER MAHZAR DATED 15.08.2023 AT ANNX-C; TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER /NOTICE IN NO. B2/AA MO SA KA VVA/2023-24 DATED 20.11.2024 AT ANNX-F PASSED BY THE R-2; TO RELEASE THE TREES IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER, CEASED UNDER MAHZAR DATED 15.08.2023 AT ANNEXURE-C. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36611 WP No. 8754 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by the second respondent's notice dated 20.11.2024 [Annexure-F], and the second respondent has issued this notice calling upon the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.5,63,579/- and a sum of Rs.1,40,895/- [in all a sum of Rs.7,04,474/-] as a cost of the trees and the penalty for cutting the trees without the necessary approval. Sri Muniswamy Gowda, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the respondents cannot, and they do not dispute that the trees are in the petitioner's land, and in that event, even if the petitioner has cut the trees without prior permission as required, the second respondent could not have - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36611 WP No. 8754 of 2025 called upon the petitioner to pay the value of the trees. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner is willing to pay the penalty in a sum of Rs.1,40,895/-. Sri Rahul Cariappa, the learned Additional Government Advocate, is heard in the light of these submissions. This Court opines that the second respondent has only called upon the petitioner to show cause against confiscation subject to payment and it should be open to the petitioner to demonstrate that the felled trees [timber] were within her land and that the second respondent could not have called upon the petitioner to pay the value of the trees and the liability would only be to pay the penalty. The second respondent should consider these circumstances and pass just orders before there is any confiscation. The petitioner's grievance will be duly addressed if there is consideration as above. In the light of the afore, the following: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36611 WP No. 8754 of 2025 ORDER [i] The petition is allowed-in-part reserving liberty to the petitioner to show cause in terms of the submissions before this Court along with a certified copy of this order calling upon the second respondent to consider the same strictly in accordance with law but in an expedited manner. [ii] The petitioner is reserved with liberty to file a certified copy of this order within two [2] weeks from the date of receipt thereof and the second respondent shall consider the same as aforesaid within the next four [4] weeks. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA ct:sr