Dhirendra Mishra - ,7 Judge r/: URT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA5PUR HIGH CO No.3793 [2008 W.P. (227! PETITIONERS Hungn & anofher (AppeHants) Vs S‘ra’re of CG. and o’rhers RESPONDENTS POST FOR ORDERS ON 19:4Julx. 2008 Sd/- IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASP W.P. (227) No.3793 OF 2008 1. Hunga, S/o Podiya, Aged about 3O PETITIONERS AppelIanTs ‘ years. 2. Bhima S/o Hidma, Aged abouf 35 years. Bofh are by casTe Madiya, R/o Edpal, P.S. Gadir'as, Tahsil Danfewada, Dis‘rT. South Basfar (C.6.) Vs 1. 51'a1e of Chhatfisgarh-Through its Collector, Soufh Bastar, Dan’rewada (C.6.). 2.The Revenue Board, Circui’r CourT, Jagdalpur (C.G.) 3. The Collec‘ror, Soufh Basfar, Danfewada (C.G.). REsPONDENTs Presem‘: ‘ Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocafe, For The pefh‘ioners. Mr. A.5. Kachchawaha, Dy. Adv. General. : For respondent No.1 ‘ro 3. 0 R D R (Passed on £ uly, 2008) Dhirendra Mishra, J 1. The peTi‘rioner's by The ins’ran‘l‘ pefifion have impugned fhe order da‘red 20.11.2006 (Annexure P-5) passed by fhe Collector, South BasTar, Dan‘rewada whereby fhe Collec’ror has imposed a penal’ry of Rs.5,000/— agains1 fhe pe1‘i1‘ioners and confiscafed Teak Trees sTanding over The Iand of The peTiTioners, which were illegally fallen, under SecTion 241 (4) of The C.6. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for shorT 'Code'). The peTiTioners have also impugned The order of Board of Revenue daTed 28.9.2007 (Annexure P-7) whereby The appeal preferred by The peTiTioners has been dismissed and The order of The CoIlecTor has been upheld. .Mr. PaTankar, learned counsel appearing for The peTiTioners vehemenTly argued ThaT The proceedings under SecTion 241 of v The Code is criminal in naTure, Therefore, burden of proving illegal felling of Trees by The peTiTioners lies/wipe l. ‘i l i H UR Page 2 of 4 prosecufion. The prosecu’rion has failed ’ro prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as The witnesses i.e. Pa'rwar'i and Naib Tehsildar examined by The prosecufion, have cafegorically stated That They have nof seen fhe pefifioner's felling ’rhe Trees and ’rhey do not have any personal knowledge regarding felling of Trees. However, learned revenue au‘rhorifi'es relying upon fhe alleged confession of The pefifioners fhaf ’rhey were responsible for felling of frees, have held ’rha‘r fhe pefi’rioners had cu’r fhe ’reak frees. He furfher argued ’rhaf fhe pefifioners have already deposifed The fine amounT of Rs.5,000/—, however, They being Bhumiswami of land over which The Trees were sTanding, were en‘l’iTled To The cost of Timber and The Trees in quesTion were noT liable for confiscaTion. . Heard learned counsel for The peTiTioners on admission. . 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 peTiTioners vide order daTed 24.6.2005. Their sTaTemenTs on oaTh were recorded in which They admiTTed ThaT They have felled 19 Teak Trees sTanding over Their bhumiswami land for The purposes of sale. They also sTaTed ThaT They were noT aware of The rules & regulaTions regarding felling of Trees and selling The same To The STaTe. AfTer recording ThaT The peTiTioners have conTravened The provisions of SecTions 240 6i 241 of The Code, The maTTer was referred To The CollecTor Through The Sub Divisional Officer, SouTh BasTar, DanTeWada. .The CollecTor, SouTh BasTar, DanTewada issued show cause noTice daTed 31.5.2006 To The peTiTioners. The peTiTioners in Their reply of Annexure P-2 accepTed ThaT The Trees sTanding over Their Bhumiswami land were illegally cuT, however, They denied ThaT They were responsible for The same and Tgok a defence ThaT The Trees were cuT by some unidenTified person. l ”i l l Page 3 of 4 If was fur‘fher‘ sfafed fhaf since They were ar'r'esfed in connec’rion with iHegal felling of ’rr'ees over' ’rhe government land and were in jail Till 28.1.2006 and released only after They were acquif’red, ’rherefore, ’rhey could not make any complainf againsf fhe felling of ’rrees. . During enquiry Halka Pa’rwari Shri Suman Ram Hidko, Revenue Inspec‘ror Shri T.K. PaTel and Naib Tehsildar Shri R.N. Sai were examined by The prosecu’rion, whereas, fhe pefifioners herein examined 'rhemselves in their defence. The Naib Tehsildar in his sfafemenf on oa‘rh has sfa’red ’rhaf he had recorded The sTaTemenTs of The peTiTioners on oaTh aT The Time of enquiry in which They confessed Their guiIT and sTaTed ThaT They shall noT repeaT The offence in fuTure. However, all The prosecuTion wiTnesses have admiTTed ThaT They did noT personally see The peTiTioners felling Trees. . Learned CollecTor considering The sTaTemenTs 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 peTiTioners and ThaT The peTiTioners were incarceraTed in jail only from 10.8.2005, The defence of The peTiTioners for no‘T 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 peTiTioners in Their sTaTemenTs on .oaTh during enquiry before The Naib Tehsildar confessed felling of Trees, Their conTenTion ThaT Though The Trees sTanding on, Their' land were fallen buT They wire no-T l l J. in i; . WW Page 4 of 4 responsible for The same as some unidenTified person has fallen fhe Trees and ’rhm‘ ’rhey could no? report The mah‘er 1'0 ’rhe Collecfor as They were in jail in The reIevanT period, is noT born ouT from The evidence available 0n record and learned CollecTor has righTly disbelieved The defence of The pe’riiioners in ‘rhis regard. 9. Therefore, in The considered opinion of This CourT, There is no illegali‘ry, infirmify or jurisdictional error commiTTed by The ‘courTs belOw in passing The impugned orders of Annexure P-5 exercise of jurisdic‘fion under Arh’cle 227 of The Cons’ritufion of India. The peTiTion has no meriT, The same deserves To be dismissed and accordingly, iT is hereby dismissed aT The admission sTage‘ 10. No order as f0 cosfs. and P-7, warran’ring in’rerference Sd/— Dhirendra Mishra \ Judge : Roshan/- E f