HIGH COURT OF CHHAT'IISGARW AT BILASPUR W.P. (Z27) No.3794 /2008 PETITIONER (Appellam‘) Joga RESPONDENT S’ra’re of 6.6. and ofher's POST FOR ORDERS ON 7—7’ July, 2008 5d]- Dhirendra Mishra O Judge W.P. (227) No.3794 OF 2008 PETITIONER Appellan‘r 1w Vs Joga, 5/0 Kosa, Aged abou‘r 45 years, Cas‘re Madiya, R/o‘Edpaal, P‘s. Gadiras, Tahsil RESPONDENTS Dis’r’r. Dam‘ewada, Sou’rh Basfar‘ 2. The 3. The Collec’ror', SouTh Bas’rar‘, Dan’rewada (C.G.). Circui‘r Board, Jagdalpur (C.G.) Revenue CourT, Presenf: Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate. Mr. V'A.S. Kachchawaha, Dy‘ Adv. General. /. ORDER For The pe’rifioner. For responden‘r No.1 To 3. (Passed on ggm July, 2008) J Dhirendra Mishra 1. The petitioner by the instant petition has impugned the order dafed 20.11.2006 (Annexur‘e P—5) passed by ’rhe Collector, Soufh Basfor, Danfewada whereby fhe Collector 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.G. 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 order of the Collector has been upheld. .Mr. Patankar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that the proceedings under Section 241 of the Code is criminal in nature, therefore, burden of proving illegal felling of. trees by the petitioner lies 'on the prosecution. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as the witnesses i.e. Patwari and Naib,’ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (6.6.) 1. Sfaie ChhaTTisgarh-Through Collecfor, South Bastar, Dan‘rewada (C.G.). Page 2 of 4 Tehsildar' examined by ’rhe prosecufion, have cafegor‘ically stated Thaf They have not seen The pefi’rioner- felling The frees and They do no? have any personal know'ledge regarding felling of ’rr‘ees. HoweVer, lear'ned revenue authorities relying upon the alleged confession vof the petitioner that he was responsible 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. . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on admission. . 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 25.6.2005. The petitioner's statement on oath was recorded in which he admitted that he has felled the 17 teak trees standing over his bhumiswami land for the purposes of sale. He also stated that he was not aware of the rules 6i regulations regarding felling of‘trees and selling the same to the State. After recording that the petitioner has contravened the provisions of Sections 240 6i 241 of the Code, the matter was referred to the Collector through the Sub Divisional Officer, South Bastar, Dantewada. .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 illegal felling of trees over the government land and was in jail:,,till l . i‘ i F: ‘Page 3 of 4 28.1.2006 and released only afTer he was acquitted, Therefore, he could nof make any complainf against The feHing of frees. 6. During enquiry Halka Pafwar‘i shri Suman Ram Hid‘ko, Revenue Inspector Shri T.K. Patel and Naib Tehsildar Shri R.N. Sui were examined by the prosecution, whereas, the petitioner herein examined himself in his defence. The Naib Tehsildar in his statement on oath has stated that he had recorded the statement of the petitioner on oath at the time of enquiry in which he confessed his guiit and stated that he shaii not repeat the offence in future. However, all the prosecution witnesses have admitted that they did hot personally see the petitioner felling trees. 7. 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 confiseating \ the timber and imposed a penalty of Rs.5,000/—. Appeal preferred against the said order has also been dismisSed by the Board of Revenue by recording the similar findings. 8. 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 as the was in jail in the relevant period, is not born out mow, ii l Page 4 of 4 evidence available on record and learned Collecfor has rightly disbelieved fhe defence of fhe pefifioner in ’rhis regard. 9. Therefore, in fhe considered opinion of This Cour’r, There is no illegalify, infirmity or jurisdicfional error commif’red by The cour’rs below in passing fhe impugned orders of Annexure P-5 and P-7, warram‘ing inferference in ’rhe exercise of jurisdicfion under Ar‘ricie 227 of The ConsTiTuTion of India. The peTiTion has no meriT, The same deserves To be dismissed and accordingly, if is hereby dismissed aT The admission sTage. 10. No order as To cosTs. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra L Judge