75 H¥GH GQURT QF $HHR’?TE$GARH A? BBLA$F§JR $Eng!e Bemh: Han’bb $h3’i Hi" §aétu, QJ. ‘N!ii‘ ?et§t§cm Na. 3?48 QF 'wg? . Peiitiemr Varis mayat Ali An, Aged Rio vmage abouf Dipa-deih 65 y ar$ Khum‘. S/o Po. 8hr! Shankargarh, District Sarguja (MP) Agricuéturist by occupaiian. Vs. Qespcmiem State of Madhya Pradesh iinrough. The Divi5ional Forest Oimer, East Sargu§&, Distt. Sarguja MP Petiiion under Amcie 226/227 of the Constitufion of India. Fiegent: Shr‘z Pram“ Bharat counsei for ihe petitioner, Shri \finaa/ Hark; Dy. AG. for the State, ORQL QR§ER (P&$5eri on "s§ 1%m'3, 2$$§‘} Petitioner claime that he is the owoer of iand bearing Khasra No. ’t/ 2) Rakba 1-643 hectares consisting of 32 Sal treee amt 2 Saja trees. He hao' made an appiication before the Collector cm 12—232 986 to permit him to out and remove the trees from the land in question. The request made by the petitioner had been rejected by the Coiieotor, Aggrieved by the same petitioner had aebroached the first Aepeiiate Authority, it appears that the tirst Appelia‘te Authcrity hae beeeed an order Err hie favour and further directed the petitioner to out the treee and to deeoeit the trees in the forest depot {2) After cutting the trees, it appears that the petitioner had tranepotted the trees to the foreet deeot and thereafter the forest authority bad auctionee! the trees. (3) 1n this petmon filed under Articles 226.!227 m’ the Conszitution of lnd§a, fine petitioner seeks a direction to the raspondent to pay the price of the trees soiu.‘ A m J.me auction {4) The respondent has fiied a detailed saunter and in lhe said counter it is categorically stated that the irees which are cut by the petiiioner pureuani to the direction issued by the Appellate Authority, were standing on the Gevernment land, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the price of the trees sold in the auction \ (5) Before coming to the aforeeaid decision, ceeain enquiries are made by the reepondent The petitioner ie also informed about the resuit of the enquiry. Further, the respondent has directed the petitioner to rite an appropriate civil suit to ,orove the title over the trees standing on the land in question instead of approaching the civil Court, the petitioner has rushed to this Court in this petition tiled under Articles, 226/22? of the Constitution. (6) Since there is a dispute with regard to the ownership of the trees, in my opinton, the petitioner ought to have iiied an appropriate civil Suit instead of approaching this Court by fiiing thepetition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, {7.} in that View of the matter, i deciine to entertain this writ petition, Aocordingiy, the petition is reiected. (8) However, liberty ls"resen/ed to the petitoner to tile an appropriate civli suit before civii Court, if time so permits. Ordered Sdl- Chief Jusu'ce accordingly