(5T Mm HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (227) No.3798 OF‘ 2008 Mr. A.5, Kachchawaha, Dy. Adv. General. : For respondenf No.1 1'0 3. O R D E R (Passed on 2g“;J’uly, 2008) Dhirendra Mishra,‘ J 1. The pefi’rioner by fhe instan’r pefifion has impugned fh‘e order dated 20.11.2006 (Annexure P-4) passed by fhe Coliecfor, Sou‘ih Basfar, Danfewada whereby The Coliec‘ror has imposed a penalty of Rs.5,000/— agains‘r The pe’ri‘li'oner' and confiscafed 'l‘he Teak frees standing over fhe land of fhe pe’rh‘ioner, which were illegally fallen, under Secfion 241 (4) of fhe CG. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ‘Code‘). The petitioner has also impugned the order of Board of Revenue dated 28.9.2007 (Annexure P-6) whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order of the Collector has been upheld. 2. Mr. Patankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that the proceedings under Section 241 of the Code iscriminal in nature, therefore/burden of proving illegal felling‘of trees by the petitioner lies on the prosecution. T'he-proSecution has failed to prove its case / .1‘ i] i PETITIONER Kosa, s/o Muda, Aged abou‘r 4O Appellant Cas‘re Madiya, R/o Edpaul, P.5. Tuhsil Dam‘ewada, DisTT. Soufh (C.G.) Vs v ' RESPONDENTS 1. Sfm‘e of ChhaHI‘sgar‘h-Through Collecfor‘, Soufh Basfar', Basfar', (C.6.)‘ .The Revenue’ Board, Circuit Circuit Jagdalpur‘ (C.G.) 3. The Collec’ror, Soufh Bastar, (6.6.), Presenf: Mr‘. P.R. Pafunkar, Advoca‘re. For the @ ‘ beyond reasonable doubf as The wi‘rnesses Le. Pa‘rwari and Naib Tehsildar examined by fhe prosecu‘rion, have ca’regor‘ically sfafed Tha’r They have no’r seen fhe pe’rifioner felling The frees and fhey do nof have any personal knowledge regarding felling of frees. However, learned revenue authorities relying upon ’rhe alleged confession of The pel’ri‘rioner ’rha’r he was responsible for felling of frees, have held fhaf The pefifioner had cuf fhe Teak Trees. He further argued fhaf The peTiTioner has already deposiTed The fine amounT of Rs.5,000/-, however, he being Bhumiswami of land over which fhe Trees were sTanding, was enTiTled fo The cosT of Timber and The Trees in quesTion were noT liable for confiscaTion. 3. Heard learned counsel for The peTiTioner on admission. 4. The Naib Tehsildar, Kuankonda/KaTekalyan (Tappa) on The basis of reporT daTed 14.9.2004 of The Halka PaTwari, Bade-Gudra regisTered a case of illegal felling of Trees and summoned The li‘ peTiTioner vide order daTed 256.2005. The peTiTioner's sTaTemenT on oaTh was recorded in which he admiTTed Thaf he has felled The Teak Trees sTanding over his bhumiswami land for The purposes of sale. He also sTaTed ThaT he was noT aware of The rules 6i regulaTions regarding felling of Trees and selling The same To The STaTe. Affer recording ThaT The peTiTioner ”‘i‘ has conTravened The provisions of SecTions 240 & 241 of The , Code, The maTTer was referred To The CollecTor Through The ‘ Sub Divisional Officer, SouTh BasTar, DanTewoda. 5 The CollecTor, ~SouTh Basfar, DonTewada issued show cause noTice daTed 31.5.2006 To The peTiTioner. The peTiTioner in his reply accepTed ThaT The Trees sTanding over his Bhumiswami land were illegally cuT, however, he denied ThaT he was responsible for‘ The some and Took a defence ThaT The Trees were cuT by some unidenTified person. IT was furTher sTaTed ThaT since he was arresTed in connecTion wiTh illegal felli/niof Page 2 of 4 / \ . Page 3 of 4 @ *r‘ees over the governmenf land and was in jail Till 28.1.2006 and released, only affer he was acqui’rfed, Therefore, he could no’r make any complainf againsf The felling of frees. . During enquiry Halka Pafwari Shri Suman Ram Hidko, Revenue Inspecfor Shri T.K. Pafel and Naib Tehsildar Shri R.N. Sai were eXamined by fhe prosecufion, whereas, fhe pe’rifioner herein examined himself in his defence. The Naib Tehsildar in his sfafemenf on oafh has sfafed fha’r he had recorded the sfafemen’r of The pefifioner on oafh a’r the fime of enquiry in which he'confessed his guilf and stated that he shall not repeat the offence in future. However, all the prosecution witnesses have admitted that they did not personally see the petitioner felling trees. . Learned Collector considering the statement on oath recorded by the Tehsildar and further considering that illegal felling of trees was done on or before 4.9.2004, the spot panchnama was recorded in the presence of the petitioner and that the petitioner was incarcerated in jail only from 10.8.2005, the defence of the petitioner for not reporting the matter to the authorities immediately after felling of trees was not considered bonafide and relying upon the statements of the government witnesses passed the impugned order confiscating the timber and imposed a penalty of Rs.5,000/‘—. Appeal preferred against the said order has also been dismissed by‘ the Board of Revenue by recording the similar findings. ' . In view of the admitted fact that the trees were fallen on or before 4.9.2004 and the petitioner in his statement on oath during enquiry before the Naib Tehsildar confessed felling of trees, the petitioner's contention that though the trees i standing on his land were fallen but he was not responsible for the same as some unidentified person has fallen the trees and that he could not rep'ort the matter to the Collector as t;il /he, / Page 4 of 4 was in jail in fhe relevanf period, is nof bor‘n out from The evidence available on record and learned Collec’ror‘ has righfly disbelieved fhe defence of fhe peh‘fioner in ’rhis regard. . Therefore, ih fhe considered opinion of This Courf, ’rhere is no iiiegalify, infirmi’ry or jurisdicfional error commiHed by the courfs below in passing The imougned orders of Annexure P-4 and P—6, _ warranting inierference in The exercise of jurisdiction under Ar’ricle 227 of fhe Consiiiufion of India. The petition has no merif, The same desarves To be dismissed and accordingly, iT is hereby dismissed aT The admission sTage. 10. No order as To cosTs. Sd/- gDhirendra Mishra l Judge l“ Roshan/—