STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. ETC. versus ELIZABETH MAYNE AND ANR. ETC.

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 1088 · Decided: 08-04-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1088 
STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR. ETC. 
v. 
ELIZABETH MAYNE AND ANR. ETC. 
April 8, 1976 
[A. N. RAY, C.J., M. H. BEG AND JASWANT S!NGII, JJ.] 
Reden1ption of the tree f!fOWtii on "Bane" lands by '~Wargadars" or their 
transferees/successors in posl·ession-Riglus of reden1ption-The Coorg Lan• 
and Revenue Regulations 1899, Section 97 and the Karnataka Forest Rules 1969 
Rule 137 Karnataka Land_Revenue Act 1967, s. 75-Scope of. 
-
'·Bane lands" are forest lands granted for the service of the "Warg", holding 
rice fields to which they are allotted to be held, free of revenue, for grazing, 
leaf nlanure/firewood and for timber required in the Warg, capable of being 
alienated only along with the Warg lands u/s 97 of the Coorg Land and Revenue 
Regulations 1899, which is in pari n1ateria with Rule 151 A and B made 
under the Indian Forest Rules 1954. 
The holders of the Bane Land had the 
riJ!:ht to redeem the trees standing on such Bane lands subject to the payment 
of seignorage etc. Under Rule 137 of the Karnataka Forest Rules 1969, effective 
from 1st March 1969, redemption of the .growth on "Bane lands" \Vas allowed 
on pHyment of 50% of the value of the timber. Rule 137 was however deleted 
w.e.f. !5th January 1974. 
The various appellants who were holders of "Bane Lands" challenged, 
under Art. 226. the orders of the Forest authorities demanding full value of the 
timber sought to be "redee1ned" by them contending that (i.) they had vested 
right to redeem the trees on Bane lands on payment of 50% of the value of 
timber under the Coorg Land and Revenue Regulations of 1899 and (ii) Section 
75 of the K!!rnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 vested in th_em an absolute right 
in respect of the trees on Bane lands and the Government therefore had no 
right even to demand 50% of the value. All the writs \Vere accepted by the 
Mysore Jiigh Court following its earlier decision in l.L.R. (Karnataka) 1975 
Vol. 25, p. 443 (Ra1naraju J\laidu v. Div/. Forest Officer) holding that the Rules 
conferred a right on the holders of Bane lands to redeem the trees standing 
on such lands on payment of 50o/o of the value of the timber to the State along-
with other incidental charges. 
The court did not express any opinion ·whether 
the State had no right to demand 50% of the value under the Karnataka Land 
Revenue Act of 1964. 
Allowing the State appeal against I.L.R. (Karnataka) 
I 97 5 Vol. 25 page · 443 the Division Bench held [in State of Karnataka v. 
Ramaraju Naida I.L.R. (Karnataka) 1975 Vol. 2'5 p. 1361] that (i) the Bane 
holders had no propriety right to the soil of Bane Land and to the trees standing 
thereon but only limited privilege to collect grass leaves timber etc. for domestic 
purposes (ii) Even after s. 75(1) of the Karnataka Land Revenue_ Act was 
enacted. the Bane holders did not become holders or occupants as defined in 
the Act and ownership of trees did not accrue to them and (iii) Section 79 
of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act which preserved the preexisting privileges 
of Bane holders has no application to Bane lands. 
Keeping 15-1-74, the date 
of deletion of Rule 137 of the Karnataka Forest Rules 1969, the Division 
Bench, however, directed that ( 1) the respondents \vho deposited before 15th 
January 1974 50% of the value of timber as determined by the Forest Officer 
could be graflted permits to cut and rem.eve timber, with liberty to the Forest 
Officer to recover and any differential amount between the 50% of the actual 
value of timber and amount paid on the basis of prior determination and (ii) 
those respondents who have made applications under rule 137 before 15th 
January 1974, brit not deposited the amount could also be granted permits 
on deposit of 50% of the value of timber. 
Dismissing the State appeals, by certificate, the court 
HELD : (I) Th~ learned single judge in ILR (Karnataka) 1975 Vol. 25 
p. 443 rightly did not express any view on the second question as to whether 
I 
KARNATAKA V. ELIZABETH MAYNE (Ray, C.J.) 
1089 
the Bane Land holders could ask for removal of trees without payment full of 
A 
. 
~value u/s 75 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. 
[1091Al 
'W 
Ramaraju Naidu v. Div/. Forest Officer I.L.R. (Karnataka) 1975, Vol. 25 
• 
p. 443 (partly affirmed). 
(ii) The directions given by the Division Bench are explicable because of 
15th January 1974 being taken as the dividing line \Vith regard to persons who 
made payments and persons who did not make pa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.