^^ AF^-- 3^1 Petitioner State of Chhattisgarh, Versus Respoudents Cham.ru & another. POST F-OR I 1 161200 Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge 3^ T^T 'i<T3"s? TI^IT?. 'B^'Tfn'^' rllr^TT'^>T1 iO'iP r('¥TT»rATJTT1S.r£.A1E?'E3'&rTi T?TT A<5'OTT1: 3.£3.^c £S.3.\S£2, ^/'k^U^.A '-^SS \^-£3.£3.^5iiA i.©3U?£SL^Si.X3..f&A £ii,^f^&0^'UA's %'RIT PETITIOS 1^0. 1749 OF 2006 Petitioner State of Cliliattisgai-h, through Co'Uector. South Bastai-, Daiitewada District Daiitewada (CG) Versus Respondeiits i. Chamru S/o Boti, by Caste Telaiiga, R/o Vfflage Phoolpad, Tahsil aild District Daiitw/ada (CG-i 2. Board of Reveiiue Cliliattisaarh. nCG) T^f^.i^.i^^i-' ^reseiit: Va, U.N.S.Deo, learned G.A, for tlie State/petitioner, Mr, B.P. Shariua, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. DI (Passed on // June a. J liS'e^.^ v Respondent No. 1 and otliers nsmiely SBit. Laxmi Boti, Hapu S/o Podiya, Hu-nia S/o Podiya, Bachhu S/o Boti aiid Laxman S/ o Litigu clauiiuig tliemselves to be the ownei-s of Kiiasra No.264/ 1 as.d 325/ 1, ai'ea 132.51 acres, inoved ail app3icati.on on 25.6.2002 undei- Sections 240, 179(1} as.d 241(3) of tlie CIlhattisgazh Laiid Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter referrecl to as Vie Code'j before tiie Collector, Daiiten-ada for periaission offeUitii tunber trees sta.nding o\'er their laiid on the gt'ound that aJl the luarked trees had cfa-ied and become hoUow, he is getth-ig notices froni the uT.coine tax depai-tinent for pa^'m.ent of tax aiid after 'feUjiig the trees he UTitends to divert the laad into agricillture land '5^ after cUgghig bore well, purchasin.g tractor, erectilig bai-bed wii'e fencing. It was stated th.at the laiid u-i qiiestion is not forest laiid. The proceedings on his eai'lier appUcation for perBiission were di-opped ui vie'w of bail. on feUing toees by Honl^le tlie Supreuie Court. Howe»,rer, with the periaission of the Go\'t. of Iiidia aiid as per clit-ection. of the Central Eiapowered Conim.ittee, the Govt. of CliliaUisgarh has since revoked the bail on feUiag trees ui Bastai- division, his application inay be considerecl aad alloived. 3, The applicaiit filed aiiother application. dated 6.1,2003 statiilg tlierein that he does not belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe and therefore, no permission as envisaged under Section 240 ofthe Code is requtred. No government forest or non- goveniment forest is situated near lus lajid, tlie laild iii question does not coiae w-itliui the definition of forest as uiterpreted by tlie Hoii"ole Suprenie Court, 3. The CoUector aiter legisteriug the application of respondeiit No.l/'applicailt fon.varded tlie sam.e vide his order dated .31.12.2002 to the Sub Divisional Offica- (Rweiiue), Dantavada for conductuig eiiquit-y. Report dated 20.12.2002. of the Di\'isional Forest OiB.cer, Daiitewada was a3.so aDnexed alonp wdfli the a^pplications for his coniinents. The Daiitewada, after receiviiig tlie above a.ppUcations du-ected the Naib Tehsildar, Kualconda to condiict enquiry as pa- Sections 240 & 241 of the Code aiid as per clirections issiied by the State iti tiiis regard aiid subniit lus report. The Naib Tehsildar duriilg enquu-y ordered tliat tfie land in qiiestion bearuig Khasra Nos. 264/ 1 & 325/ ]. ai-ea 132.51 acres, 'be siii-veyed on the basis of m.ap available with the Paiicha;,'at aiid old record. The eiiquiry was takeil up on tlie spot 011 13.3.2003 aiid it •was discovered that on coinpai'ison, the old iiiap produced by respondent No. l/ applicant aiid fhe iiiap of changed Khasra No. as pa- new settleaient record, did not correspond partiaUy. The eiiqiiiry was agaiii taken up on ttie spot on 4.5.2003 sii.sl spot iiispecticin report was prepared, The stateiiients of the applicant ^-^ a-iid co-owners were recorded. Represeiitation froni the Forest Coiisei-vation Coiiiinittee could not be procured as th.e forest coiiiinittee was not constituted for tlle v-fflage. Report of Aruiexure R-1/4 was prepared iii wliich perniission for feUing 445 ,trees was reconiiiiended aild tlie saine was fonvai'ded to the CoUector tlu-ougli S.D.0, on 13.5.2003. The S.D.0. wMe fonvai'duig the u'lspection report vide lus order dated 20.5.2003 did uot agree witli the reconiriiendation of the Tehsildai' on the gi-ound that the nuiuber of trees recoDiniended for feUing is excessive aad recom.m.euded that the applicaiit should be granted perinission to cut such nuia'ber of ti'ees which is necessai'v for ineethig Iiis expenditure. Howo.'er, the CoUector vide his order dated 18.6.2003 of AruTiexure P/ 4 rejected the appUcation of respondeut No.l/applicant and directed the Officer-In-Chai-ge, Land Record Section, Dantewada to regi.ster the case and find oilt the reasons for the discrepancies existing in the old record and flie present record pre|:)ared during settleinent, 5. Respondent No. 1/applicaiit beuig aggrieved by the ordei' of Al'm.exiire P/4, preferred an appeaJ. before the Board of Reveniie, BUaspur, bearitig Appeal No. 17A-63/2002-2003, wliich was disinissed at the achiiission stage vicle order dated 8th Auglist 2003 ofAruaexiire P/5. Thereafter, respoiident No, 1 prefen-ed a reviesv petition against the above order and learned siiigle Mem.ber of the Board of Revenue vide his order dated 13th Janiiary 2004 passed iii lewiew petition No. l/A-63/2003-2004, partiaUy aUowed the appeal and accorded perniission to the respondeut No. 1 for feUitit trees standing OVCT unclisputed Khasra Nos. ai-id accorcliiigly, directed the Collector to issue penaission for feUing trees after exam.uiing the records aiid taking iD.to consideration the recoinrueildations of forest departnieiit aild reports of the suborditiate reveniie officers. The State inoved ail application befQre the Board of Revenue to recall its eailiei: order dated 13.1.2004 on the ground tliat no review petition was inauitauiable agaitist th.e order dated 8th August 2003, however, flTie saine was rejected vi.de order dated 29, 10.2004, The State unpiignjxL±tl£ 4 orders dated 13.1.2004 atid 29.10.2004 passed by fhe Boai-d of Re'/eiiue, Biiasplir vide Writ Petition No. 1066/2005 and this Coiu-t wde ordei' dated 16.9.2005 of Aiinexure P/7, disposed of tlie petition, set aside the above orders aiid reniaiided tlie matter to tlie Board of Reva-iue to decide Reviav Case Nos, l/A-63,' 2003- 2004 and 2/A-63/2003-2004 on its owii merits iii accordsmce mUi lawwitMn a period offoiu' inonths. 6, The Board of Revenue vide unpiigtied order of Alineia.u'e Pf 1 dated 7th Noveinber 2005 recorded a faiditig that order dated 8.8,2003 was passed by the Boai:d of Re'.renue withoiit requisitioiu'iig and perusing the record of the suborditiate Court and appeal was d-lsoiissed suinraarily at tlie admission stage •Kdthout consideritig the lelevaxit legal provlsions and therefore, a ca.se for reviavuig tlie order dated 8.8.2003 un.der Section 51 ofthe Code read with Section 47(1) of the C.P.C, is made out aad accordirigly, revie'Ared it and aUowed the appeal of fhe respondent Wo. 1. Perinission was accorded to liim. for feUing undispiited trees standuig over new Khasra No. 134,142, 144, 1581, 1583, of .£;u-th above 124 c.m., in case oftealc n'ees axid 120 c.m. in case of other trees, 7. Leai-ned counsel for the petitioner subaiitted tliat he has moved ta'o appUcations dated 10.4,2007 aiid 30.4,2007 for takmg docunieiits on record aiid copy of these applications have been givai to counsel for respondent No.l, who contended tliat he has no objection tf tlie docuiaents are takai on record. Accorcluigly, the applications ai-e aUowed and dociinients ffled with above applications, are taken on record. 8. Learncd coiinsel for the petitionei- argiied that leai'ned single Meiaber of the Boai'd of Revenue was not eligible to hear the rd'ie'A'' petition as per Rule 7 of tlie "Rules Regarcyng Exercise of Jurisdiction By Siiigle Meiabers Atld Benches (Aruiexiire P-2), wl'dch reads as under: : : appiication for re/iew of aii order shaJ.1 be decided bv the Meiuber who or tlie Beiich Vidiich passed the order ofwhich reviev-r is sought. Wliei'e the Menibei- is not available or fh& Bench, for aiiv reason. cannot be reconstituted, the appUcation shaU be decided by tlie Mem.ber or ttie Berich noiniaated ad hoc bvfhe Preside-at. 9. He fi.lrther contended that as per coinmunication received li'om. the Secretary, Board of Revenue dated .19th April 2007 which has been filed along witTa. tlie application dated 20th Api-il 2007, learned siiigle Mem.ber was not the Chairiliail of the Boai'd of Revenue on the date the revieiv petition was taken up for hearnig aiid ui vie'w of Rule 7, he could not have eiitertained and clecided the revie'A' peti.tion, directed agaizist the orclei- dated 8.8.2003 wliich was admittetlly passed by other Member. He furtlier argu^ed that specific objection to tliis effect was taken by tlie State, however, the sam.e was not considered. The inatter in ciuestion related to Bastar division and therefore, it coiild be heard only by a Bench of Board of Revenue at Bastai- or any othei- Bench constituted bv Chairnian of the Board. Learned single Meiuber was neither sitting Meniber nor Chaitinaii of the Boai'd. It is farthet- argued that the learned Bryaxd of Revenue after holclitlg that the order dated 8.8,2003 was reviewable, clid not issue notice or afford ail opportuiTi.t;/ of hearuig to the State to advance their argiim.ents on inerits. 10, It is subinitted that rei/ien'jurisdiction can be exercised oiily on ground of error apparent on the face ofrecord aiid not on a.ny otlier ground. Mere et-roneous decision per se does not pCTm.it the Court to undertake leview aivl jurisdiction of reviav camiot be exei'cised as aii appeal iil disguise. Grievaiice of respondent No.l/applicaiit in review petition was that his appeal was siuiimarily cUsmissed withoiit caUuig for record, without assessiriE fhe evidence available on record, therefore, a case of leview is inade out, however, Uie sanie ainounted to erroneous judgment wliich cannot be reiaedied witluii the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C, and the review application on' tlie above gi;ound wasjipt niaititainable. '^^ 1.1. ReUance is placed on the decisions ofthe Hon'ble Apex Court reported AIR 2003 Gujarat 157 in the matter of Ahmedabad !-ri tTl{'3' "m jsttr:2rr nf iyifie!]T?s nhsraiB ^ Ai k^ IS: ;l scc S4 ill the matter of T.l' ArfA, (Si SCC 713 iii tlie matter ofPs 1964 S. C.l372 in the matter of ne u 1986 Cateutta 111 iii fhe inatter of another ¥s. State of West iti tlie niatter of •lll the luatter of Jayaramaa asd another Vs. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for icspondent No.l/appUcant subiuitted that to iiivoke tlie siipenisoTy jurisdicuon under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is required to estab3ish that error is nianifest and apparent on the face of record aad grave itijustice or gross failure ofjustice has occasioned thereby. It is not available for correctijag the niere errors of fact or law. In the instaiit ca.se, the reiAew petition of t}ie aiisweruig respondent was ini.tiaUy heaj'd by flTLe sa_iae Beach without any objection atld tlie Teviev.7 appUcation was altowed as also the appeal, agaiiist v/hich the State preferred writ petjtion, wliich was aUowed and the inatter vfas remaiided by the Higli Court to the Board of Revenue with a dii'ection to decide the rev'iew petition witliiii a period of four inoths, thei'efore, in these circum.stauices, the learned single Mem.ber entertaiiied and decided the petition aiid passed Uie imp'agned order. He further submitted fhat froin bare perusal of the ordei- zinder review.' (Annexure P/ 5j it is evident that the order was passed "Arithout requisitioniilg the record of the suborcliiiate Court and even withoilt discussuig the ^y relevajlt provisions of the Code wliich is, on tlie face of it, erroneous aiid illegal. * 13, It is Ixi.rther ai-gued that the laild tn question is the Bhunii Swami laiid of respondent No, 1. Divisional Forest Officer. Daj'iteivada a&ei spot iiispection vi.de hi.s report ofArtnexiire E-1/2 recom.i'aended felling of 408 ti'ees. Proceecliags for perm.ission of feUing trees initiated on his earlier application were ciropped on 32nd Mai-ch 2001 on tlie gl-ound that Hon'ble Apex C.ourt has uiiposed baii, FIowever, thei'eaitei', on the basis of peTmission by the Union of Iiidia and as per du-ections of the Central Einpowered Coiiiiuittee, the State Govenim.eiit has liftecl tlie baii on feffiiig trees ui Bastar division aiid Sectioiis 240 aiid 241 of the Code has beeii accoTciingly auiended in the year 2002. Since respondeiit No. 1/appUcant is non-tribal, no periaission was necessary for cuttuig dried ttmber trees stancling over his Bhumi Swami laiid. The laild i.n cpiestion does not come witllln the defiiiition of forest aiid the provisions of Forest Consen'auon Act, 1980 are not applicable m the instant case, After processiiig his application the Naib Tehsildai' has subinitted his report vide Aiuiexiire R-1/4 and recoinniended th.at 445 trees ai'e ripe to be czit and accorduigly pennission inay be granted. The S.D.0, also forwai'ded the report ofTehsildar witli positive coiaments, howeva', the CoUector only on the ba.sis of soine difference mth respect to description of the land of the answermg respondent in the old aild nav Tecord, which required correctioii, has rejected his application witl-i a ijnctuig that if tlie perniission is accorded, the State m.ay sustaiii losses. Tlie Boai'd of Revenue a&et' consideruig tlie recom.Hiendations of tlie Division.al Forest Of&cer, the certificate of Saipaiich that plaiitation of 9050 teak trees lias been clone ai-id fi.u'ther consideriilg the spot uispection report of Nai.b Tehsildar wtiei'ein feffing of 445 trees was recomniended, ailowed the appeal aild accorded periiiission for feUiiig of iindisp-ated trees staiiduig over new Kliasra. Nos. 134, 142, 144, 1581, 1583 as per workuig plan of the forest clivisicai accordiiig to wliich pei'aiission m.a.y be granted for feUirig teak trees of gu-th above 134 c.m.. an.d for otiier trees above 120 c.m., girth. ^32 Thus, the orcler of the Board of Revenue is strictlv in accordance with law aiid the saine is based on the law laid down by tlie Hon'ble Sunreaie Court. 14. ReUance is placed on the decision of th.e Hon'ble Apex Coiirt reported in. (3Q03S 6 SCC 675 m the matter of Surva Dev Rai ?s. Ram Chander 'S.s.i and others aiid (20041 11 SCC 4S7 iii the matter of Sri Ram Saha Vs. State of W.B. and others. 15. Lastly, it was conteilded that tlie tunber ti-ees for wlrich perinission has been graiited by the Board of Revenue has been hai^rested. IrdtiaUy tbey were given in tlie c-astody of the petitioner. Subsequaitly, the State was pefinitted to auction the felled trees and it was ordered that the sale proceeds be deposited iii an uiterest bearuig account of the Nationalized Baiik, Since ia accordance inth the pennission by fhe inipugiied ordei the work of feffiilg trees has ah-eady been accoiiiplished, fhe valiclity or othenwise of t.he iinpugaed order has becoine redundant aiid iLieaiiingless. 16, I have heai'd learned couiisel for the respective parties aiid perused the niaterial avaiiable on record. 17. tt is not in. tUspute that the proceefling for perniission of felluig trees on the eai-Uer a^ppUcation of respondent ?Io. 1, was dropped on 22n" Mai'ch 2001 wifli respect to sam.e lan.d, lAereiipon subseqiieilt appUcation for pCTniission to feU trees stanclitig ovei- Kliasra Nos. 264/1 S-, 325/1 ai-ea 132.51 aci-es recorded iri the nanie of respondent Ho. 1 and othei-s, was filed. The perniission was sought on the ground th.at (i) respondent Wo, 1/appUcaa.t is requu'ed to pa}' uicoine tax, (ii) after feUiiig oftlie trees he intencls to divert fhe above land m.to agriciiltural laiid aftei' fencing by barbed wire, piirchasing tractor an.d cligguig bore ~eU, The new settlement recoid ofviUage Phulpadwas obtained iii the year 1996, accortling to which new niiinbers have beea aUotted to the holclings of respoadent No, 1/applicaiit. From. report of the Tehsildar of Amiexiire R-1/4 it also appeai-s fhat on demai'cation y and coniparison of m.ap it was cUscovered tha.t there was som.e addition and alternation iii the areas. From the order sheets of Aimexure R-l/3 dated 11,3.2003 & 13,3.2003 it reflects that survey wras doiie on the basis of old ret/eirae records and laap available n-ith the Paiich.ayat as the laiid records and current m.ap wei'e deposited by tiie concerned Patwari in the laild record section and on coruparison, the map of the old record did not conespond with the m.ap of the record prepared on the basis of new settieinen.t, Froin report ofthe Tehsildar as also from the repoit of jouit CoUector, which has been siibsequenti;/ filed along with the application dated 10.4.2007, it appeai's that ui the holduig of respondent No. 1 i.e, I'Chasia No. 264/ 1, GoveriTm.eiit land aiid other private laiid have been clubbed, The laiid has been described as 'Bare ,Mar Ka Jimgle' whereas in IChasra No. 325;' 1 also Governinent land aiid land of other fai'iners have been chibbed hi ne~w' lecord after settleBient. LLTL the niap prepared duriBLg settleiaetit is erroneoiis and the laiid has been described as 'Chhote .}S~t£ir Ka Jvngle', 18, Leai-ned Board of Revenue relviiig upon the report of Annexure R-1/2 ofthe Divisional Forest Officer, has reached to the conclusion that laiid in question is not forest land, laad of the applicailt does iiot belong to the category of protected or resei-ved forest, it does not com.e witlun the defiiution of forest, provisions of Forest Consei'vation Act, 1980 ai'e not applicable aiid the]-e is no unpecliuient m. graiitm.g pennission undei' Sections 179, 240 aiid 241 ofthe Code as froia perusal oftiie rqport ofTehsUdar as also '&OBI that of D.F.0. it is cleai fhat the laiid in question is not ui congruity wifh the forest border,. nor it is withiu 30 aieters from. any source ofwater, &om. any religious place or creraation place, the laiid is also not -Rnthiti 15 nietei's 6'om. any road or 6 ineters fiithiti pedestriaii path. 19, The Hon'ble Siipreiuie Court in the matter of T.E. JW.P.202 of 19951 renorted in (19971 2 SCC 267, intCTBreLui^ ^i 10 ineaning of Torest' under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 has held that provisions ofthis Act m.ust apply to aU t;,rpes of forests irrespective of the nature of owmership or classi&cation thereof. The word "forest" ]3iust be understood accortling to the dictionat-y meaniiig. The Court clarified that this description covers all statutorily recogTUzed forest, whethei- desigiiated as resCTved, protected or othenvise for the purpose of section 2 of the Act. The tCTin Torest' land as occurring in. section 2 ivffl not only iiiclude "forest" as linderstood iii the dictionary sense, but also any ai'ea recorded as forest ui the Goverrmient record il'respective of the ownership. 20. Havuig extended the scope of the Act, the Hon^le Apex Court fiu-ther directed each State Goverrmient to constitute an expert coiam.i.ttee witliin a m.ontb. to - idetitify ai-eas which are Torest' irrespective of whether they ai-e so notified, recognized or classi&ed under atiy laa', aild irrespective of the ownerslup of the laiid of such forest, identifs' areas which wei-e earlier forests but stand degraded, deiiuded or cleared; aad identiftr areas covered by plantation trees belonging to tlie Goveriiment an.d tliose belongitlg to private persons. The Court also directed that. all on goins actb/ity within aiiy forest in any state thi-oughout the country, n7ithout the prior approval of tlie Centfal Goveriitaent, luust cease forfliwifh. Signi&cantlv, the feUuig of tress ii^ aU forests is to reiiiain s-uspended except in accordance with working plaiis offhe state governinents, as approved by the Central Goveriim.ent. 21, In the above T.W. Godavariuaa's case tlie Ron'ille Apex Court \"de ordei- dated 16th Decembei- 1997 rqiorted iii (19981 9 SCC 633, wliile decidiag the m.terim. applications and after perusuig the uiterun report of Loka')'nkta of Madliya Pradesh observed that a relative of foriiier uiuuster was perm.itted to feU 849 trees statldiii; over the land described "Bare Jhar ka JangaT. Ttais was facibtated by the Goveriitnent officials particiilai-ly by the fonner Coiaruissioner ofBastar. The State Goverrun.et was asked to file an '^s 11 affidavit statin.g fhe action, if any, taken against the erraiit oflicials for the above conduct. * 32, In the aforesaid inatter, the Hoii'ble Apex Court -i/ide order dated 7th Jai-msay 1998 reported in (1998) 2 SCC 341 taJdng note of the fact that the State Goverrtm.ent was iinable to deal v.7ith the matter expeditiously in spite of fhe report of Loka\"lkta of M.P., directed that to uphold the rule of law, iiivestigation into eutire niatter covered by the report of Loka^aikta of M.P, be made by C.B.I, aiid necessary follow-up actions uiclucling prosecution ofthe person found iiivolved should also be initiated by the C.B.I. 23. The Hon'ble Apex Court throiigh series of (lirections, orders aiid jlldgments passed from. time to tuiie iti the inatter of T.N. Godavarm.an (supra) has interpreted the Forest Conservation Act thi-oiigh piu-posefiil constniction so as to ensure its unpleinentation ili its true letter and spirit and fhe Central Enipowered Com.Blittee was constituted vide order dated 9,5.2002 for the purpose of redi-essing grievaiices of any individual agaitist the action taken agauist th.cm. b;,' the autliorities ui purported coDipliaiice of the ordei-s passed by the Hon'ble Suprerae Court. Frora periisal of the various orders, clirections and judgments passed b;,' the Hon^le Supreine Court it is manifestly clear that irrespective of the nature of fhe holding whether it is held by the land owner ui the capacity of Bhiiiniswanii or MaJik Makbooja, feltuig of the trees in all forests is to be effected oilly in accordaiice with fhe working plaris of the State Goverruiient as approved by the Centi'al Governm.eiit. The Honl^le Suprem.e Court has seriously deprecated the actions of the revenue authorities in according perinission of felluig trees stan.dm.g over the laiid described as Bade iJhad Ka Jungle and directed hivestigation into the entire matter by the C.B.I. and prosecution of the persons found uivolved. Working plans/schenies are necessai'y for feUias trees frosi any non-forest areas incluctuig laiids wlii.ch are requu'ecl to be treated as forest as pei' order dated 12. 12,1996 aild no fellini was to be done unless budgetary provisions exists for regeneration .^ of such forest, Detailed giiidelines wei-e to be jramed by the State Govei-iunent aiid approved by the TAii-u.stry of Enviroiiment ai.id Porest, Govt.. of Tndi.a, for non-forest areas aiid private plaiitation and no feBuigwas to be doiie till giiideUnes becsume effective. 24. The question for consideration i.n tlie iiistant inatter is- "tvhether the laild ui question comes withiii the defiiution of forest?" and "whether the periuission accorded by the Boai'd of Reveiiue for felliag trees on the recoininendations of tlie Divisional Porest Officer and subordinate revenue ailthorities, is in coilforniity with ftie various orders, directions aiid judgments passed by the Hon'ble Suprenie Court fi-oni tune to ttme in. Godavarinaiis case? 25, From. the inaterial avaU.able on record, the untUsputed facts emerguig Hiay be suuimai-tzed as iinder: (i) tb.at proceedings for pennission of felluig trees fi'om. the land beaTUlg Khasra Nos. 264/1 & 3 25/ 1 was cb'opped on 22nd March 200 1 ui view of tlie baii imposed by tlie Hon'ble Supreme Court in tlus regai'd; (uj that respondait No, 1 uioved appUcations dated 23.6.2002 sn.il 6,1.2003 under Sections 240, 179(1) aiid 341(3) of the Code for permissiou of feUing trees on the ground tliat after fellu'ig trees he shall convert the laiicl for agricultxu'e and he uiteiids to purchase tractor, dig bore wdl aad feiice bis laiid by bai'bed wu-e for protection of his crops fi-om. aiiimals, he is iti 'the need of uioney for payiiig iiicome tax to the tune of Rs.1,50,000/-; (ui) that report of Ai'uiexi.u-e R-1/2 ofthe Divisional Forest Offica' was subiuitted ui pursuaiice of inemoraiiduin dated 4,11.2000 of the CoUector, wluch was probably issued on fhe basis of eai-liei' application of respondent No. 1 for periiiission of fe31mg trees. However, no report \va.s requisitioned by fhe CoUector fi-oni the 3^ 1: D,F.0. on the subsequent application of respondent No.l; (r^ that report of Anne?aire R/2 Bientions that Pajichanania was prqiared on 8.12.2002 m the presence of forest officers, revenue officers and the lan.cl owner Chamru, the land is rec.orded m. the naine ofChaniru said sonie others, it is not adjacent to forest aiid protected forest is at a (listaiice of 5 km, effective workiiig plan prepai-ecl for girth of tlie trees reconiniended for feBing corresponds with the worldnj plan aiid tlierefore, their feUrng is recoinm.ended an.li the approxiinate value of feUing trees has also been inentioned. The report no'K'hei'e nientions that tlie reconiniended trees are wuid-faUen or di:iedtrees; [vj that tliere is iitter conflision in the description of the land belonghlg to respondent No. 1 as earliei' Khasra Wos. 264/ 1, 325/ 1 have been convez'ted into Khasra Wos. 134, 142, 144, 1581, 1583 whereas Kliasra Nos.325/1, 325/36, 325/37, 325/68 have beeii subsequently converted