HIGHICQURT OF CHHAJ'TISGARH AT BILASPUR ‘ WRIT PETITION (227) NO.3790/08 PETITIONERS Hunga & ofhers RESPONDENTS Sfaw of ChhatTi‘sgarh & ofhers A‘f POST FOR ORDER ON k-7-2008 Sdji Dhirendra Mishra Judge l HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (227) No.3790 OF 2008 PETITIONER 1. Hunga, 5/0 Kosa, Aged abou’r 20 year's. 2. Chinga, 5/0 Kosa, Aged about 35 year's. 3. Joga, 5/0 Kosa, Aged about 19 years. 4. Hunga, S/o Ganga, Aged abouT 45 years. (All by caste Madiya, R/o Edpal, P.S. Gadir‘as, Tahsil DanTewada, Dish‘. Soufh Basfar (C.6.) Vs RESPONDENTS 1. S'ra’re of Chha’r‘risgarh-Through i‘rs CoIIecTor, SouTh Bas’rar‘, DanTewada (C.G.). 2. The Revenue Board, Circuit Court, Jogdalpur (6.6.) 3. The Collector, South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.). Present: Mr. PR. Patankar, Advocate. : For the petitioners. Mr. A.S. Kachchawaha, Dy. Adv. General. : For respondent No.1 to 3. (Passed on O Q£_ R D FJuly, R 2008) Dhirendra Mishra J 1. The petitioners by the instant petition have impugned the order dated 20.11.2006 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Collector, South Bastar, Dantewada whereby the Collector has impOSed a penalty of Rs.5,000/- against the petitioners and confiscated one teak tree standing over the Iand of the petitioners, which was illegally faHen, under Section 241 (4) of the C.G. 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 Collector has been upheld. .Mr. Patankar, learned counSel appearing for the petitioners vehemently argued that the proceedings under Section 241 of the Code is criminal in nature, therefore, burden of proying illegal felling of tree by the petitioners lies on the fj‘ l V _. . .. W. ,7 V, f Page 2 of 4 prosecution. The prosecm’ion has fuiled To prove its case. beyond reasonable doub‘r as 'rhe wiTneSSes i.e. Pufwar‘i and Naib Tehsildar examined by The prosecution, have categoricaHy stated that they have not seen the petitioners felling the tree and they do not have any personal knowledge regarding felling of tree. However, learned revenue authorities relying upon the alleged confession of the petitioners that they were responsible for felling of tree, have held that the petitioners had cut the teak tree. He further argued that the petitioners have already deposited the fine amount of Rs.5,000/-, however, they being Bhumiswami of land over which the tree was standing, Were entitled to the cost of timber and the tree in question was not liable for confiscation. . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner 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 tree and summoned the petitioners vide order dated 25.6.2005. Their statements on oath were recorded in which they admitted that they have felled one teak tree standing over their bhumiswami land for the purpose of sale. They also stated that they were not aware of the rules di regulations regarding felling of tree 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 tree standing iover their Bhumiswami land was illegally cut, however, they denied that they Were responsible for the same and took a defence that the tree was cut by some unidentified pegon. It ,4 / . ‘i/i l Page 3 of 4 was fur‘rher‘ sfamd fha‘l’ since they were ar'r‘esfed in connection wi’rh illegal felling of frees over' The governmen‘r land and were in jail Till 28.1.2006 and released only affer They were acquih‘ed, Therefore, They could no1' make any complainf against fhe felling of free. . During enquiry Halka Pafwari Shri Suman Ram Hidko, Revenue Inspeclor Shri T.K. Pa’rel and Naib Tehsildar Shri R.N. Sai were examined by ’rhe prosecufion, whereas, The peTiTioners herein examined Themselves in Their defence. The Naib Tehsildar in his sTaTemenT on oaTh has sTaTed ThaT he had recorded The sTaTemenTs of The peTiTioners on oaTh aT The Time of enquiry in which They confessed Their guilT 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 Tree. . Learned CollecTor considering The sTaTemenTs on oaTh recorded by The Tehsildar and furTher considering ThaT illegal felling of Tree 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 noT reporTing The maTTer To The auThoriTies immediaTeIy afTer felling of Tree 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 Tree was fallen on or before 4.9.2004 and The peTiTioners in Their sTaTemenTs on oaTh during enquiry before The Naib Tehsildar confessed felling of Tree, Their conTenTion ThaT Though The Tree sTanding on Their lqnd was'fallen buT They were noT responsible for’wThe t} /’, a“ 2‘ y/ \{i V :7 W Roshan/f‘“ w/ Page 4 of 4 same as some unidenfified person has fallen The Tree and Thaf they could noT report fhe maHer 1’0 The Collecfor as they were in jail in the relevant period, is not born out from the evidence available on record and learned Collector has rightly disbelieved the defence of the petitioners in this regard. . Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Courtgthere is no illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error committed by the courts below in passing the impugned orders of Annexure P-5 and P~7, warranting interference in the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution 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 to costs. Sd/n Dhirendra Mishra s, Judge