HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (227) No.3792 /ZOO8 PETITIONER (Appellam‘) Joga Vs RESPONDENTS STaTe of CG. and ofher's PosT Fonz ORDERs ON ’9” Julx zoos Sd/n Dhirendra M§shra Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIsGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (227) No.3792 OF 2008 Mr. A.$. Kachchawaha, Dy. Adv. GeneraL : For respondent No.1 to 3. \xn o R D E R (Passed on .ggijmy, zoos) Dhirendra Mishra J 1. The petitioner by the instant petition has impugned the order dated 20.11.2006 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Collector, South Bastar, Dantewada whereby the 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 i : has been dismissed and order of the Collector has been upheld. ’2. 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 PETITIONER Joga, S/o Ganga, Aged ahou’r 55 years, Appellanf Cas’re Madiya, R/o Edpaal, P.S. Gadiras, Tahsil Dan’rewada, DisTT. Soufh Bas‘rar (C.G.) Vs RESPONDENTS 1. Sfafe of Chhaf‘risgar‘h-Thr‘ough H’s Collecfor‘, Sou‘rh Bastar, Dan’rewada (C.G.). 2.The Revenue Board, Circui’r Court, Jagdalpur (6.6’) 3. The Collector, Sou’rh‘ Basfur', Dan‘rewada (C.G.). Present: Mr. PR. Pa‘rankar‘, Advoca’re. : For fhe petitioner. Page 2 of 4 U 3 Tehsildar examined by the prosecu’rion, have categorically sTaTed ThaT They have no’r seen ’rhe pe’rifioner' felling The frees and They do not have any personal knowledge regarding felling of Trees. However, iear‘ned revenue aufhorifies relying upon fhe alleged confession of 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 'de-posiTed 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 dafed 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 21 Teak Trees sTanding over his bhumiswami land 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 (Si 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 infMl 6_ Page 3 of 4 \ 28.1.2006 and released only affer‘ he was acqui’rfed, therefore, he could not make any complainf agains’r fhe felling of Trees. . During enquiry Halka Patwari Shri Suman Ram Hidko, Revenue Inspec‘ror Shri T.K. Pate! and Naib Tehsildar Shri R.N. Sai were examined by The prosecufion, whereas, The pe’ri’rioner herein examined himself in his defence. The Naib Tehsildar in his sfafemen’r on oaTh has sfai'ed Thaf he had recorded The s’ra’remen‘i of The petitioner on oath at the time of enquiry in which he confessed his guilt 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 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. . 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 from’nthe Page 4 of 4 evidence availab|e on record and learned CollecTor has righ‘rly disbelieved fhedefence of fhe pefifioner in This regard. 9. Therefore, in fhe considered opinion of “this CourT, ’rhere is no illegali’ry, infirmify or jurisdicfiona! error commiTfed by fhe courTs below in passing The impugned orders of Annexure P—5 and P-7, warran’ring interference in The exercise of jurisdiction under Ar’ricle 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition has no merit, the same deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, it is hereby dismissed at the admission stage. 10. No order as to costs. Sd/n Dhirendra Mishra s Judge