HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.7061 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.02.2011 **** Jagpal Singh & Anr. . . . . Petitioners VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, DAG Punjab Mr. CL Premy, Advocate for respondent No.3 **** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioners seek a mandamus to direct the respondents to allow them to cut and remove the trees from Plot No.1&2 at village Bari in terms of the auction allegedly held on 4th April, 2001 wherein they were declared as the successful bidders. (2). The above-stated auction largely pertained to 15960 ‘khair’ and ‘Sheesham’ trees. The auction was allegedly conducted by the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Bari in the presence of the BDPO and Director, Local Government, however, without prior permission of the CWP No.7061 of 2010.doc - 2 – Forest Department or the approval of the competent authority under the Forest laws. (3). The respondent-Forest Department has filed a reply/affidavit explaining that permission to cut only 5371 trees has been accorded after identifying them to be the dead trees and that there is now substantial increase in the price of trees as per the details given in para 1 of the preliminary submissions. (4). Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered view that the Gram Panchayat, Village Bari could not have auctioned the ‘khair’ and ‘Sheesham’ trees nor such like trees can be felled without prior permission of the Forest Department and other statutory Authorities prescribed under the Forest laws. No tree can be allowed to fell unless it is declared ‘dead’ by the Forest Department. No such exercise was earlier undertaken when the alleged auction was conducted by the Gram Panchayat. (5). That being so, the desired direction cannot be issued in favour of the petitioner. (6). The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, however, with liberty to the respondents to hold a fresh public auction in respect of those trees which have been declared to be ‘dead’ by the ‘prescribed competent authority’. CWP No.7061 of 2010.doc - 3 – (7). The amount, if any, deposited by the petitioner be refunded to them within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (8). Dasti . 07.02.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge