IN THE HIGH COURT OS- CHHATTISGARH AT BIIASPUR. r.p. NO. _ J? €[t , 72005 PSTITIONER ^ ,^J tft" ^"^! .^••Aly .^y/ ^wy ^9-' RESPOI-iDENTS Parsadi s/o Sukalu, age years, r/o village Kadgaon Tehsil Manpur, Distrlct Rajnandgaon, C.G. VER 3 U S 1.-. The State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Forest Qepartmeat, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur, C.G. 2. The Additioaal Collector, Rajnandgaoa, Digtr.i.ct Rajnandgaon, C.G. 3. The Board o£ Revenue, througb secretary, Gircuit Court, Raipur, District Raipur, c.G. MRrT_PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. XI-HC-22 311^1^1 R-1R;3II^T OTRigfiflT ^IIV^' 3?g';s(pn?PT, ©Tflu'iG,faOTHg^ ^- 311^1 M?fch ITTBR^TgOT^" """"""""""" W^ 200 f°R^"" STT^T S?([RK H)t(T 8^.2006 Advociate oraer Shri A.K. Prasad petittonere. Shri N. K.Agrawal,| Sandeep Dubey, Govt. By this common 3611/2005 are being dispos^d both the writ petitions. A By these petitions the | propriety and correctness of| the Board of Revenue in order dated 28-6-2004 Rajnandgaon in case No.04[A- were cut with the permisslon| have been confiscated and Rs.5,(X)0/- on each of the Board of Revenue to the ext^r of 4 trees in respect of W. R. ofW.P.No.3611/2005 wasi Facts are almost Advocate W'rth the consent of petitions are being disposed <jif finalty wit(i Shri Rajesh Tman, counsel for the tii<ii<n41.i Hiii?]T^'tecfl<Ri«i< ^>3lf^T3IR?T Deputy Adwcate General with Shri forthe State/respondents. Writ Petitions No.^»/^X)5 and of, as the similar point is invdved m dispos^d Ipetlttonere have qu^kxwd the tegdity, ]the wder dated 30-11-2004 passed by No.87-A/73/2(%)3-04 and also the tjassed by the Acklitksial Coltector, No.04|A-73/2003W whereby the trees which of Tehsildar from the agricuttural fields Addittonaf Coltector imposed a fine of Ipetittoners which was reduced by the pnt of Rs.1,000/-. However, confiscation No.3609/2005 and 17 trees in respect njiaintained. ^dmitted, therefcN'e, teamed Deputy General does not v^ant to fite any reply of these petitlons. letimed counsel for the parties, the abow ttte XI-HC-22 XI-HC-22 sn^rcfiT ferasn^r ^tii'htiRd 3q' 'tlHW<i, W^\WW, fafflW^ ffmciTSiw* 3^ •*ll<llct<<, »xflu'l<o,Rldiyy 311^1 Mach ^.....................^ ^Q fSt't>< ail^l^WIWtrfltr _ q In W. P. No.3609/200^ the petitioner's case is that he is the owner of land bearing Khas('a No.257 area 4.14 acres situated at village BHarritola,P. H. Nop5 under Rajaswa Nirikshak Mandat, Manpur. Four teak frees wei^ standing <n his agrreultural land. He moved an appticatiNi under Land Revenue Code before ^ie Tehsiidar to grant permission to cut those trees. The sakl perrjiission was granted by Tehsildar vide order dated 30^ January 2004. However, Patwari thereafter made a report to the S.D.O. and in that trees in questkm have] Similar is the case petitioner sought permisskin ^iPlfepfrTWRlt'fr'fe^ rfSRSTC ^srf^TSn^T Section 240 of the Madhya Pradesh |lum S.D.O. reported the matter to the Collector from where he trjansferred the case to Uw Additional Collector. The Additkmal Collector vtde oreler dated 28-6-2004 hekl been cut without pCTnisston of the Cdlector, therefore, trees ar^ confiscated anda fine of Rs.5,000/- imposed. of W.P.No.3611/^XB m whtoh the 'rom Tehsikiar for cutting 17 trees from his>field and in tum Teh^ildar granted pennlssiwi vide order Annexure-P/2 dated 30 Jar|uary 2X34. Patwari made a report to the S.D.0. and S.D.O. reporjted the matter to the Coltector and the Collector tnansferred this ma(er to the Actditional Collector who vide order dated 28-&-2004 hetei (hat trees in questton were cut without permi^on of the Collector, fine of Rs.5,005/- imposed. therefore, trees are confiscated and a XI-HC-22 ;i^\ <-nl la.-iicnSn^T ??iR;CT?(T 3^ -<|I<<IM<<, ®Tn«'i<»,ferrey STT^T^ch KiHni !»>*<|ch ••••••••••••••-•••••• ^pj- 200 f^s' 3IR?T STciTW Hf?cT °> Against these orders, appeal hotciing that trees in <t)l<<iyl4l-1 ITTtRft H te€T<i ^iSTf^PTSn^T both the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Revenue Board ahd in turn Revenue Board dismissed the question cut ?t/ithout permission of the Cotlector and TehsiUar vtjas not entiti«l to grant permission, therefore, confiscatiQn was fnaintained. However, fine amount was reduced from Rs.5,000/- to F^s.1 ,000/-. It is admitted poslt'ion trees in question and they cirt trees only after taking permission from Tehsildar, therefore, it c^nnot be said that without seeking permission or approaching pevenue Authorities, they cut trees and the Tehsildar concemed gr^nted permission to the petftioners for cutting trees. IT the Tehsij competent authority to grantj known. Since the petitioners that the petitioners were the ownere of dar was not knowing that who is the permission, then how from an iliiterate villager it can be expected t|iat he ought to have sought pennission from the Cotlector. Even though Revenue Board has ordered for enquiry against Tehsitefar, fcjuf so far what has happened it is not ;ut trees after getting permission from Tehsildar, 113 the peculiar facjts and circumstances of the case, ends of justice woutd meet if the drders passed by the Additipna! Collector and the Revenue Board are ^et askie. Now, since the treesi aside the impugned orders,] havs already been cut, while setting it is directed that togs in questton be handed over to the Forest. Department and in tum Uie Foreet -J- XI-HC-22 ^s^ -^ww^, tfTfl'M'iio, fsifiiuy &II^IM^ch tllHMl shtllUi ••••••••••y-------g^ 200 '«s swvV^ r=n3iraT SWW.'ff^! rtil'-ll''l'-TH ^Wvii if f3CZT ^srf^iTsn^T Dspartment wouid asses thq value of iogs and to pay the assessed amount to the petitioners. With the direction a^sresaid, the above writ petiigon^stand disposed of. In view of this ord^, all the pending applicatiais stand disposed of. Parties are entitled for {^rtified copy of this order. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judse