^< ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI8GARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 23 ot'2009 Petitioners : 1. K(^sa, S/o Pandu, Aged about 40 years. 2. Suka, S/o Deva, Aged about 35 years. 3. Mu. Hadme, Widow ofBhima, aged about 45 years. All are Mandia by caste, R/o village Edpal, Tdiisl Dantewada, Distt. Dantewada (CG). VER8US Respondenis : 1. State of Chhattisgarh thm^i Collector, Distt. South Bastar C»antewada,Chhattisgarh. 2. Revenue Board, Throug^i Registrar, Circuit Court Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh. (WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUT10N OF INDIA) ^e^MSItt- fSB: HontbleMr.8atishK.Aenitaotri,J.) Present : Shri Parikai Shrivastava, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Shashank Thakur, Panel Lawyer forthe State. ~^k( ORALORDER (Passed on 15th day ofJasiuary, 2009) Wifh the consent ofthe parlies, the matter is taken up for hearingfmally. 1. This is a petition, impugning the order dated 27.02.2008 (Amiexure P/l), passed byfhe Board ofRevenue in Revenue Case No. A/03/R/A-63/196/2007, whereby, fhe petitioners were found guilty for cutting of eleven Sagone trees wilhout permission ofthe Collector. The matter arose from the order dated 05.12.2006.» passedby the Collector, Dantewada, whereby, eleven illegally cut Sagone trees were confiscated bytfae State Govemment. 2. Admittedly, fhe petitioners could not obtain sa&ction/pemussion of the authorities under Sections 240 and 241 ofthe M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (fbr short the Code, 1959'). Rule 4 offhe "Rules Regarding Regulation QfThe Felling And Removal Qf Timber hi Villages Adjoming Govemment Forests", provides fbr making an application before the Collector, and in Ifae eveirt his application is not decided within a period oftfaree montibis, tiiCTeafter a ^witteIl commumcation/reminder may be made to the Collector and ifthereafter, within a period ofthree months, application is not decided it shall be deemed to have been agreed to the cutting applied for. 3. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners relymg on fhe above provisions, submits fhat tiie petitioners made an application and fhe same was not considered within a period of three moiiths and as such the petitioners being poor tribal, could not obtaia permission and cut seven trees standing on their own land aadfbur trees from fhe govemmeiit land. 4. Per contra, Shri Shashaiik Thalcur, leamed counsel appearing for the State submits that fhe Revenue Board, after havmg considered the facts of the case, observed that the seizure of eleven Sagone Irees standing on the private & govemment land could haye been sanctioned after cutting of fhe trees. Accordingly, the petitioners are entitled to proceeds ofthe sale ofthe saidlrees. 5. I have heard leamed counsel appeanng fbr the parties, perused the pleadings mid documents appended fhereto. It is evident that the te-ees standing on private land ofthe petitioners as well as govemment land were cut wifhout sanction oftte authorities. 6. The order passed by the Board of Revenue is just ssid proper and needs no mterfet-ence. 7. Accordingly this petition is dismissed. No order asto costs. Sahu Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge