IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 639 OF 2009 (MS) Rampreet ………….Petitioner. Versus The Divisional Forest Officer and another. ………Respondents. Mr. Suresh Chandra Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Mr. Suresh Chandra Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondents. The contention of the petitioner before this Court is that he is the owner of an agricultural land, which is presently under his cultivation and there are fourteen “Saal” trees, which the petitioner wants to fell, as these trees are causing hindrance in the normal agricultural activities of the petitioner. This is the case of the petitioner. Consequently, the petitioner moved an application for felling the said trees under the Uttar Pradesh Protection of Trees in Rural and Hill Areas Act, 1976 (from hereinafter referred to as the Act) before the Competent Authority, but this permission is not being given to the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition. The counter affidavit, which is on record has been filed by the concerned Divisional Forest Officer, who state in paragraph 5 that out of the fourteen “Saal” trees, eight trees are green and rest six are dry, therefore, such a permission cannot be granted in toto. 2 In view of this Court, in case permission for felling of these six dry “Saal” trees can be granted under the law, which are admittedly standing on the agricultural land of the petitioner, the respondents must consider the application of the petitioner for felling these six trees, which are by admission of the concerned Divisional Forest Officer are dry trees. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the Divisional Forest Officer of the area shall dispose of the application of the petitioner for those trees, which are admittedly dry and take a decision within a period of three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. With the aforesaid directions, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 21.12.2009 Rathour