IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CWP No.3812 of 2010 Date of Decision: 10th September, 2010 Sukh Ram Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta,J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol,J. Whether approved for reporting1? No. For the petitioner: Mr.P.C.Sharma, Advocate For the respondents: Mr.Vivek Thakur, Addl. Advocate General, for respondents No.1 to 4. Mr.Gopal Sisodia, Advocate, for respondents No.5 to 11. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) Petitioner submits that the private respondents No.5 to 11 in connivance with the Forest officials cut as many as 60 trees on 7.5.2010. According to the petitioner, he made a complaint to respondent No.4 as well as Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur, but no action was taken and consequently on 19.5.2010 said respondents No.5 to 11 cut all the remaining trees in the plantation made by the Whether the reporters of Local Papers are allowed to see the Judgment? 2 forest Department in Village Sihra (Chaihar), Tehsil Sadar, District Bilaspur. 2. Reply has been filed by respondents No.1,2 and 4 on the affidavit of Conservator of Forests, Bilaspur. In this affidavit, it is admitted that a complaint was received in the office of Conservator of Forests, Bilaspur, on 11.6.2010. Inquiry was conducted and during the course of field inquiry it was found that as many as 13 trees of different varieties have been felled. Action against the concerned persons was taken, damage report prepared and matter was compounded under Section 68 of the Forest Act. Reply has also been filed by respondents No.5 to 11. In this reply in fact it is not denied that the trees were felled. Respondents No.5 to 11 have virtually adopted the reply of the State and their allegations are that petitioner has exaggerated the situation. In both the replies it is stated that petitioner was having rivalry with the private respondents and that the petitioner is in illegal occupation of forest land. The petitioner is now trying to build up a case that he is in possession of the same since the time of his forefathers. 3 3. Normally this Court would not entertain a petition where obviously there are personal disputes involved. However, from the pleadings of the parties, it is apparent that at least 13 trees out of the forest plantation were felled without any permission by the private respondents and some other villagers. It also appears that the petitioner is in illegal occupation of forest land and is trying to regularize his possession thereupon. 4. We, therefore, dispose of the writ petition with the following directions:- (i) Respondents No.5 to 11 and other villagers, who have compounded the matter with the Forest Department, shall pay the cost of plantation of 13 times of number of trees, felled by them, in the forest plantation as well as maintenance cost of these trees for a period of eight years. Since 13 trees were felled the said respondents shall bear the cost of plantation of 390 trees as well as maintenance cost of these trees for a period of eight years. The forest department shall 4 work out the cost and recover the same from respondents No.5 to 11. (ii) The forest department shall initiate action against the petitioner to evict him from the forest land in his occupation in accordance with law. The proceedings be initiated within four weeks from today and it should be ensured that the same are completed latest by 30th March, 2010. 5. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of. (Deepak Gupta) Judge. 10th September, 2010 (Sanjay Karol) (C) Judge.