CFnitOiJ1"14li)7 r^i v ^l o 15-^^ AMENDED PETITION TN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE MADHYA l/^^ ^--' ^^&w PRADESH JABALPUR M.P. ^ Y\b^ C ^^fSill^l?^ WRIT •t..^.^ .h« WRIT PETITION N0. 6158 /2000 ^"'"' Smt. Man Kunwar Kore, Wife of Shri Radhe Lal Kore, Aged about 42 years, Resident of Bhanupratap-pur District Bastar, M.P. PETITIONER VERSUS (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) The State of Chhattisgarh through the Principal Secretary, Department of forest, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) The Secretary, Government of Chhattisgarh, Department of Revenue, Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) The Collector, Kanker (C.G.) AdditiongJ Collector, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) Sub- Divisional Officer (Revenue), Bhanupratappur, District Kanker (C.G.) Sub- Divisional Officer (Forest), Bhanupratappur, District Kanker (C.G.) Tahsildar, Bhanupratappur, District Kanker (C.G.) RESPONDENT WRIT PETITION UDNER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 QFTHE CONSTITUTION OF INDIAL mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra WritPetitionNo. ^c- J l'~ Bai-.*^,......,,... ^. PETniONER RESPONDENTS Smfc Man Kunwar Kore Versus ' The State of Chhattisgarh and others Appearance: Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Deputy Govemment Advocate for the State/respondents. WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 and 227 OF THE CONSTrTtmON OF INDIA ORALORDER (21.10.2010) Challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the leamed Board ofRevenue passed on 16 April, 1999 (Annexure P-9) allowing the second appeal preferred by the respondents against tiie order passed by Commissioner, Bastar Division permitting cutting of trees to the petitioner. (2) From the impugned order, it wouldappear that the petitioner moved application on 4/04/1994 for permission to cut trees on her land bearing khasra. No.l/ 1 5, 265/1 and 365. After seeking report frdm the Sub Divisional OfGcer, the Collector, Bastar observed that the land was a piece of govemment land allotted to the peritioner, therefore pennission cannot be granted. The petitioner preferred an appeal before tihe Commissioner, Bastar Division who set aside the ^ -2- VSSS& ^,,^^^^ .^Sft •^^^Ea Ju.,».»AS!is3s8»sis order passed by the Collector and granted pennission to eut trees standing on her bhoomiswami land. The respondent/State preferred second appeal before the Board of Revenue which has been allowed by the impugned order and the order passed by Ae Commissioner has been set aside. However, the Board ofRevenue has observed that tiie petitioner, if she so desires may move a fi^sh application for cutting oftrees on khasra no. 365 (New No. 145). (3) Leamed counsel for tfae petitioner would submit that when tiie Board ofRevenue was ofthe opinion that there are discrepancies in the report about the area included in the respective khasra Nos. after change ofkhasra Nos., the Board ofRevenue should have remanded the matter for decision afi-esh to the Collector. He would also submit that when the spot inspection report was prepared aad submitted, the petitioner was never heard or allowed to participate at the time of inspection and submission ofreport. (4) Leamed State counsel whUe opposing the contention raised by the petitioner would argue that since there was dispute or confusion regarding some land which was earlier part ofkhasra No.365 having now been made govemment land, the Board of Revenue was fully justified in reserving liberty in favour of petitioner to move fresh application. He would also submit Ifaat interpolation in revenue records have been made by the petitioner's husband and a '^epartmental enquiry is pending against him, and also Ifaat before Tfl ..^-&.^E:-^g^'^ iitw^.SSSsSSagi!»''x ,_^gjjggg5S.S3SS-1 granting permission, no objection from the forest department was not obtaiaed. (5) It has been observed by the Board ofRevenue that some part of land ofold khasraNo.365 has been included in khasraNo.130 which is govemment land and therefore to clarify this position a report was submitted. However, since khasra No.365 (New No. 145) also belongs to the petitioner as her bhoomiswami land and in the some part of old khasra No. has been included in khasra No. 130 which is govemment land, a report was ealled for. Leamed counsel for the petitioner is eorrect in submitting that while obtaining the report the petitioner should have been noticed toremain (n-esent while making spot inspection or canying on demareation, however since Uberty has been reserved in favour ofthe petitioner to move fresh application for pennission to cut trees, this court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. (6) At the same time, the petitioner is also entitled to raise objection on the report submitted before the Board ofRevenue. (7) In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that fhe petitioner may move fresh application for cutting of trees standing on khasra No.365 (New No. 145) which is her bhoomiswami land and may also object to such part of the report which according to her does not depict real position on the ground. Leamed Collector shall do well to consider the objection and decide 4- -xS^. ..^^"^' r'.Jfc^?-:^''"'"'''"' IsiNP^"" the matter afresh. Leamed State counsel would submit that tiie respondent would also be granted liberty to contest the objection raised by the petitioner before Collector, Bastar. Needless to say that if any objection is moved by the petitioner before Collector, the respondent/State would also be at liberty to contest the objeetion and to prove that the report is factually correct and permission for cutting oftrees should not be granted. (8) The Collector shall decide the applieation within a period of six months from the date of presentatioa of fresh application by the petationer. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge r^ l&, s® ^.fSSSOSe' .-.^s^ .^^^y^ .••-^•'^•"^