M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR /08 ‘ Hunga State of Chhffisgar‘h & o’rhers .4 POT FOR ORDER ON 27/ -7-2008 Sd/— Dhirendra Mishra I 7 Judge WRIT PETITION (227) NO.3795 PETIjIONER Aggellarn RESPONDENTS a SN ‘ i ’ ‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (227LNO.3795 OF 2008 PETITIONER Hunga, S/o Kosa, Aged abouf 45 years, Appellanf Cas‘re Madiya, R/o Edpaal, P.S. Gadiras, Tahsil Danfewada, Dish‘. Soufh Basfar' (6.6.) r Vs Mr. A.S. Kachchawaha, Dy. Adv. General. : For respondent No.1 to 3. (Passed on O R £2 D FJuly, R 2008) Dhirendra Mishra, J 1. The peTifioner by The insfanf pe'ri‘rion has impugned The order dated 20.11.2006 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Collecfor, SouTh Basfar, Dan’rewada whereby the Collec‘ror has imposed a penalty of Rs.5,000/- against the petitioner and confiscated the teak trees standing over the land of the petitioner, which were illegally fallen, under Section 241 (4) of the C.6. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short ‘Code'). The petitioner has also impugned the order of Board of Revenue dated 28.9.2007 (Annexure P-7) whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and the order of the Collector has been s upheld. 2. Mr. Patankar, learned‘counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that the proceedings underrsection 241 of 'the Code is criminal in nature, therefore, burden of proving ’.i.llegal felling of trees by the petitioner lies on the prosecution. The prosecution has failed to prove its cos: l )‘N ,W RESPONDENTS 1. 51am of ChhaHisgarh-Through HS Collector, Somh Basmr, Dan’rewuda (C.G.). 2. The Revenue Board, Circuit Cour‘r, Jagdalpur (6.6.) 3. The Collecfor, South Basfar‘ Danfewada (6.6.). Presen‘r: Mr‘. PR. Pa‘rankar, Advocafe. : For fhe pefifioner. Page 2 of 4 beyond reasonable doub* as fhe witnesses i.e. Pafwari and Naib Tehsildar' examined by fhe prosecution, have cafegorically s‘ia’red ’rha‘r fhey have not seen the petitioner felling the trees and they do not have any personal knowledge regarding felling of trees. However, learned revenue authorities relying upon the alleged confession of the petitioner that he was responsibie for felling of trees, have held that the petitioner had cut the trees. He further argued that the petitioner has already deposited the fine amount of Rs.5,000/-, however, he being Bhumiswami of land over which the trees were standing, was entitled to the cost of timber and the trees in question were not liable for confiscation. 3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on admission. 8 , 4. The Naib Tehsildar, Kuankonda/Katekalyan (Tappa) on the basis of report dated 14.9.2004 of the Halka Patwari, Bade-Gudra registered a case of illegal felling of trees and summoned the petitioner vide order dated 24.6.2005. The petitioner's statement on oath was recorded in which he admitted that he . has felled the 8 teak trees standing over his bhumiswami land l for the purposes of sale. He also stated that he was not aware of the rules & regulations regarding felling of trees and selling the same to the State. After recording that the petitioner has contravened the provisions of Sections 240 & 241 of the Code, the matter was referred to the Collector through the Sub Divisional Officer, South Bastar, Dantewada. 5. The Collector, South Bastar, Dantewada issued show cause notice dated 31.5.2006 to the petitioner. The petitioner in his reply of Annexure P—2 accepted that the trees standing over his Bhumiswami land were illegally cut, however, he denied that he was responsible for the same and took a defence that the ‘trees were cut by some unidentified person. It was further stated that since' he was arrested in connection with illega Page 3 of 4 felling of Trees over The governmenf land and was in jail Till 28.1.2006 and released only after he was acquiHed, Therefore, he could not make any complaint against fhe felling of Trees. . During enquiry Halka Pa‘lwari Shri Suman Ram Hidko, Revenue Inspecfor Shri T.K. Patel and Naib Tehsildar shri R.N. Sai were examined by rfhe prosecu’rion, whereas, ’rhe pe‘l‘ifioner herein examined himself in his defence. The Naib Tehsildar in his sfafemen‘l‘ on oafh has sfa’red Tha‘l’ he had recorded The sfa’remenf of The pe’rifioner on oafh a’r The Time of enquiry in which he confessed his guiIT and sTaTed ThaT he shall noT repeaT The offence in fuTure. However, all The prosecuTion wiTnesses have admiTTed ThaT They did noT personally see The peTiTioner felling Trees. . Learned CollecTor considering The sTaTemenT on oaTh recorded by The Tehsildar and furTher considering ThaT illegal felling of Trees was done on or before 4.9.2004, The spoT panchnama was recorded in The presence of The peTiTioner and ThaT The peTiTioner was incarceraTed in jail only from 10.8.2005, The defence of The peTiTioner for noT reporTing The maTTer To The auThoriTies 'immediaTely afTer felling of Trees was noT considered bonafide and relying upon The sTaTemenTs of The governmenT wiTnesses passed The impugned order confiscaTing The Timber and imposed a penaITy of Rs.5,000/—. Appeal preferred againsT The said order has also been dismissed by The Board of Revenue by recording The similar findings. . In view of The admiTTed facT ThaT The Trees were fallen on or before 4.9.2004 and The peTiTioner in his sTaTemenT on oaTh during enquiry before The Naib Tehsildar confessed felling of Trees, The peTiTioner's conTenTion ThaT Though The Trees sTanding on his land were fallen buT he was noT responsible for The same as some unidenTified person has fallen The Trees and ThaT he could noT'reporT The maTTer To The CollecTor (Ls/Thee l \' Jr iv P 4 age 4 of was in jail in ’rhe relevan’r period, is ‘nof bor'h ouT from ’rhe evidence availab|e on record and learned Collecfor has righ?ly disbelieved ’rhe defence of The pefi’rioner in This regard. 9. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Couri, ihere is no illegali'ry, infirmi‘ry‘or jurisdicfional error commi‘rTed by ihe cour'l's below in passing the impugned orders of Annexure P-5 and P-7, warran’ring interference in The exercise of jurisdic’rion under Arficle 227 of 1’he Consfi’ru‘rion of India. The pefifion has no meri’r, ’rhe same deserves ’ro be dismissed and accordingly, if is hereby dismissed a’r ’rhe admission stage. 10. No order as to costs. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra s ‘ Judge Roshan/‘ \_