S?'==s*inBBniH?i ^<< HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 20 of2009 Petitioners : 1. MadkamiHirma, S/oHunga, aged about30 years. 2. Madkami Huga, S/o Rama, aged about 32 years. Both are Gond by caste, R/o village Pordem (Nagalgudapara) Tehsil Sukma, Distt. South Bastar, Dantewada (CG). VERSUS Respondents : 1. State of Chhattisgarh thrugh Collector, Distt. South Bastar Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. 2. Revenue Board, Through Registrar, Circuit Court Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh. (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 QF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.) Present : Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 15th day ofJanuary, 2009) With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is taken up for hearing fmally. 1. This is a petition, impugning the order dated 27.02.2008 (Annexure P/l), passed by the Board ofRevenue in Revenue Case No. A/03/R/A-63/194/2007, whereby, the petitioners were imposed cost of a sum of Rs. IQ.OOO/- for cutting of four Sagone trees without permission ofthe Collector, The matter arose from the order dated 26.12.2006, passed by the Collector, Dantewada, whereby, four illegally cut Sagone trees were confiscated by the State Govemment and a sum ofRs. 10,000/-as cost was imposed on the petitioners. 2. Admittedly, the petitioners could not obtain sanction/permission of the authorities under Sections 240 and 241 ofthe M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short 'the Code, 1959'). Rule 4 ofthe "Rules Regarding Regulation OfThe Felling And Removal Of Timber In Villages Adjoining Govemment Forests"., provides for making an application before the Collector, and in the event his ^^r.^ application is not decided within a period ofthree months, thereafter a written communication/remmder may be made to the Collector and ifthereafter, 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 for the petitioners relying on the above provisions, submits that the petitioners made an application and the same was not considered within a period of three months and as such the petitioners being poor tribal, could not obtain permission and cut the trees standing on their own land. In view of above, imposition of punishments is excessive and without legal sanction. 4. Per contra, Shri Shashank Thakur, leamed counsel appearing for the State submits that the Revenue Board, afiter having considered the facts of the case, observed that the seizure of four Sagone trees standing on the private land could have been sanctioned after cutting ofthe trees. Accordmgly, the petitioners are entitledto proceeds ofthe sale ofthe said trees. 5. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. It is evident that the trees standing on private land ofthe petitioners were cut without sanction ofthe authorities. Admittedly, the petitioners are poor tribal for whom money is not easily available for requirements oftheir day to day expenses. 6. The order passed by the Board of Revenue is just and proper and needs no interference except on the question ofimposition ofpunishment. 7. Having regard to facts situation of the case, the imposition of cost of Rs. 10,000/- is modified to the extent ofRs. 5000/-. The petition is partly allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Sahu