HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BII^SPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 22 of2009 Petitioners : 1. Madkami Huga, S/o Shri Rama, aged about 48 years. 2. Madkami Hirma, S/o Rama, aged about 45 years. 3. Madkami Chula, S/o Rama, aged about 43 years. 4. Madkami Baiya, S/o Rama, aged about 41 years. 5. Madkami Nanda, 8/0 Rama, aged about 39 years. All are Gond by caste, R/o village Pordem (Nagalgudapara) Tehsil Sukma, Distt. Soiith Bastar Dantewada (CG). VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Ihrugh Collector, Distt. South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. 2. Revenue Board, Through Registrar, Circuit Court Jagdalpur, CUhattisgarh. (WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITU110N OF INDIA) (8B: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Aenihotri, J.) Respondents Present : Shri Pankai Shrivastava, Advocate fw the petitioners. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for fhe State. ORALORDER (Passcd OR 15 day ofJanuary, 2009) Witfa fhe consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearing finally. 1. 'Fhis is a petition, impugning the order dated 27.02.2008 (Annexufe P/1), passed bytfae Board ofRevenue in Revenue Case No. A/03/R/A-63/195/2007, whereby, the petitioners were imposed cosl ofa sum ofRs. 25,000/- for cuttmg ofniliety Sagone trees without permission ofthe Collector. The matter arose from the order dated 26.12.2006, passed by the Collector, Dantewada, whereby, ninety illegally cut Sagone trees were confiscated by the State Govemment aiid a sum ofRs. 25,000/-as cost was imposed onthe petitioners. 2. Admittedly, the petitioners could not obtain sancti(m/pemussion of the authorities under Sections 240 and 241 ofthe M.P. Laiid Revenue Code, 1959 (for short the Code, 1959'). Rule 4 ofthe "Rules Regarding Regulation Qf The ,,^ i Sahu Felling Aiid Removal Of Timber In Villages Adjoinmg Govemment ForesAsH, provides for making an application before tihie Collector, and m the event his application is not decided within a period ofthree monlfas, fhereafter a written communication/remmder may be made to the Collector aiid iffhereafter, within a period ofthree months, application is not decided it shall be deemed to have been agreed to the cutting applied for. 3. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, leamed counsel appearing fbr the petitioners relyingon the above provisions., submits fhat fhe petitioners made an applicati<m and the same was not considered withm a period of three months and as such Ihe petitionet-s being poor tribal, could not obtain permission and cut fhe trees standing on their own land. In view of above, imposition of punishmente is excessive and witiiout legal sanction. 4. Per coritra, Shri Shashank Thakur, leamed counsel appearmg fos the State submits that tiie Revenue Board, after havmg considwed the facts ofthe case, observed that the seizure of ninety Sagone trees standing on fhe private land could have been sanctioned after cutting ofthe trees. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled to proceeds ofthe sale ofthe said trees. 5. I have heard leamed counsel appearing tbr fhe parties, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto. It is evident that fbe trees standing on private land ofthe petitionws were cut without sanction of fhe authorities. Admittedly, fhe petitioners are poor tribal for whom money is not easily available for requirements oftheir day to day expenses. 6. The order passed by tiie Board of Revenue is just and proper and needs no interference except onthe question ofimposition ofpumshment 7. Having regard to facts situation of the case, the inqx>sition of cost of Rs. 25,000/- is modified to the extent of'Rs. 12,500/-. The petition is partly allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge