<-r< /^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 21 of2009 Petitloners : 1. Joga, S/o Gadfaia, Aged about 5 1 years. 2. Mu. Hadme, Widow ofBhima, Aged about 45 years, Bofh are Mandia by caste, R/o village Edpal, Tehsil Dajntewada.. Distt. Dantewada (CG). VERSU8 Resiiondents : 1. State of Chhattisgarh thm^i CollectOT, DistL South Bastar Dantewada, Chhatlisgarh. 2. Revenue Board, Through Registrar, Circuit Court Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh. (WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUT10N OF INDIA) (SB^Jtton'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present : Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Shashasik Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORALORDER (Passed on 15U1 day ofJanaary, 2009) With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is talcen up fbr hearing finally. 1. This is a petition. impugning fhe order dated 27.02.2008 (Amiexure P/l), passed bythe Board ofRevenue in Revenue Case No. A/03/R/A-63/193/2007, whereby, the petitioners were imposed cost of a sum of Rs. 5000/- for cutting oftwenty eight Sagone tree without permission offhe Collector. The matter arose from the order dated 04.12.2006, passed by the Collector, Dantewada, whereby, twenty eight illegally cut Sagone trees were confiscated by the State Govenim^trt and a sum ofRs. SOOOAas cost was imposed on fhe petitioners. 2. Admittedly, fhe petitioners could not obtain sanction/pemiission of &e authorities under Sections 240 and 241 ofthe M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (tbr short the Code, 1959'). Rule 4 ofthe "Rules Regarding Regulation WThe Felling And Removal Of Timber hi Villages Adjoining Govemment Forests", provides for making an application befbre the Collector, and in the event his application is not decided within a period of three months^ thereatter a writteii S' Sahu communication/remmder may be made to tiie Collector and ifthereafter, within a period ofthree months, application is not decided it shall be deemed to have been agreed to fhe cutting applied for. 3. Shri Psuikaj Shrivastava, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners relying on the above provisions, submits that the petitioners made ati application and the same was not considered within a period of three months and as such fhe petitioners being poor tribal, could not obtain pemaission aad cut the trees standing on their own land. In view of above, imposition of piinishments is excessive aiid without legal sanction. 4. Per contra, Shri Shashank Thakur, leamed counsel appearing fbr the State submits that the Revenue Board, afker having considered the facts offhe case, observed that fhe seizure oftwenty eight Sagone trees standing on the private land could have been sanctioned atter cytting of the trees. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitledto proceeds ofthe sale ofthe saidtrees. 5. I have heard leamed counsel appearing fbr tiie parties, penised fhe pleadings and documents appended thereto. It is evident that fhe trees staxiding on private land ofthe petitionCTs were cut wifhout sanctioaofthe authorities. Admittedly, fhe petitioners are poor tribal for whom money is not easily available fbr requirements offheir day to day expenses. 6. The order passed by the Board of Reveiaie is just and proper and needs no interference except onthe question ofimposition ofpunishm^it 7. Having regard to facts situation oftfae case, fhe imposition ofcost ofRs. 5000/- is modified to the extent of Rs. 2500/-. The petition is partly allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge