HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1109 of 2001 (M/S) Chandra Kiran Bahuguna .…Petitioner Versus Upper Collector Dehradun & others ...Respondents Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, senior counsel assisted by Mr. G.D. Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. Lok Pal Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.4. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.04.1990 passed by Assistant Collector/Tehsildar, Dehradun in case no.30/84-85/159/87-88 whereby order for recovery of Rs.13,600/- for illegal felling of trees and Rs.2,500/-for damages was passed and also the order dated 30.05.1991 passed by Upper Collector, Dehradun whereby revision no.60/1989-90 was rejected on the ground of delay. Brief facts of the case, as stated in the writ petition, are that the Electricity Department was constructing an Electric tower line of 132 K.B. in the land of Gaon Sabha, Paunda, District Dehradun. There were certain standing trees over the land, where the tower was being constructed by the Electricity Department. The Electricity Department was directed by the Revenue Authorities as well as by the Forest Department to remove 28 trees standing over the land of Gaon Sabha. The Electricity Department after taking the 2 permission from the Revenue Authorities as well as from the Forest Department, removed 28 trees. After cutting 28 trees, the Electricity Department issued a notice to the petitioner, who was elected Gram Pradhan of the village, to remove the remaining 27 trees standing over the plots. After receiving the notice from the Electricity Department, the petitioner, again with the permission of Forest Department as well as Revenue Authorities removed remaining 27 trees. The Forest Department also permitted the petitioner to remove these trees standing over the land where the tower was to be constructed. Thereafter, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate directed the Tehsildar and the Naib-Tehsildar to auction these trees in accordance with law. The Naib-Tehsildar in pursuance of the order issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate auctioned these trees on 29.09.1984, but in the said auction the bid was not proportionate to the price of the trees and as such the same was cancelled. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, again directed the Tehsildar to notify for the auction of the trees. The Naib-Tehsildar again fixed 19th October, 1987 for the auction of the trees. On 19th October, 1984, 18 persons participated in the auction and the highest bid was by one Gulab Singh for Rs.16,000/-. The trees were auctioned in his favour, who immediately deposited Rs.4,000/- as required amount. But, Shri Gulab Singh did not deposit the balance amount in time, due to this reason he was not permitted to remove the trees from the spot. As the balance amount was not deposited by Shri Gulab Singh, the Gaon Sabha forfeited the amount of Rs.4,000/-. Shri Gulab Singh was annoyed by the said auction of the Gram Sabha. He made several complaints against the petitioner. 3 Thereafter, the petitioner with the permission of the authorities fixed 22nd April, 1985 for re-auction of these trees. On 22nd April, 1985 several contractors participated in the auction and highest bid was made by Shri Yashpal Singh, who is son of Shri Gulab Singh. But the Tehsildar stayed the said auction on the application of Shri Gulab Singh and further directed both the parties to appear before him on 3rd May, 1985. On 3rd May, 1985, the Tehsildar after hearing both the parties auctioned the trees in favour of Shri Yashpal Singh. The petitioner requested the Tehsildar that Yashpal Singh may not be permitted to remove the trees till he deposits the entire amount. But, Tehsildar permitted him to remove the trees. Thereafter, Yashpal Singh did not deposit the balance amount. The petitioner made several complaints to the respondent but nothing was done. On the other hand, on 25.01.1985 the Lekhpal of Circle Paundha made a false complaint against the petitioner in which it was alleged that 15 Sal trees have been illegally removed by the petitioner. Subsequently, another report dated 08.02.1985 was submitted by the said Lekhpal modifying his earlier report and mentioning therein that petitioner alongwith few other persons removed 34 Sal trees instead of 15 Sal trees. On the basis of said report proceedings under Rule 115-C of U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules was initiated against the petitioner and others and on 30.09.1986 an ex-parte order was passed against the petitioner by the Assistant Collector, Dehradun directing for recovery of Rs. 13,600/- from the petitioner for illegal falling of trees and Rs.2,500/- as penalty. 4 Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Assistant Collector/ Tehsildar dated 30.04.1990, the petitioner filed a revision before the Upper Collector, Dehradun. The said revision was filed after a delay of 82 days. The learned Upper Collector, Dehradun rejected the revision of the petitioner on the ground of delay. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the delay in filing the revision was that the petitioner came to know about the order of the Assistant Collector on 18.08.1990 when Amin approached him for recovery, immediately thereafter revision was filed. Thus, delay in filing the revision was bonafide and should have been condoned by the Upper Collector, Dehradun. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that there was a delay of 82 days and it was the duty of the petitioner to file a delay condonation application alongwith the revision, therefore, the revision has rightly been rejected by the revisional Court. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It is true that no separate delay condonation application was moved by the petitioner alongwith revision but it is also true that reason for delay was explained by the petitioner in the memo of revision. Thus, the revision filed by the petitioner could not have been rejected on technical ground. As far as reason for delay in filing revision is concerned, the petitioner gave a reason that the petitioner was not aware of 5 the decision and came to know about the same on 18.08.1990 when Amin approached him for recovery. Though petitioner participated in the proceedings before the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector but it is not clear whether the order passed by the Tehsildar/Assistant Collector was in his knowledge. This Court does not see any reason to disbelieve the version of the petitioner that he came to know about the decision of Assistant Collector/Tehsildar on 18.08.1990 when Amin approached him for recovery. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 30.05.1991 passed by Upper Collector, Dehradun is quashed. Revisional court is directed to decide the revision of the petitioner afresh expeditiously. (V.K.Bist. J,) 27.07.2010 Arti