\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227} NO.3797/O8 PETITIONERS Hrima and anofher Vs. RESPONDENTs Sfa‘re of Chhaf‘risgar‘h & oTher's A4 POST FOR ORDER ON ;$-7-2008 Sci/- 'Dhirendra Mishra \ Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (227) No.3797 OF 2008 PETITIONER 1. Hirma, S/o Joga, Aged abouf 3O years. 2. Nanda, S/o Joga, Aged about 25 years. (Bofh by caste Madiya, R/o Edpal, P.S. Gadir‘as, Tahsil Dantewada, Dish‘. Soufh BasTar (C.G.) Vs RESPONDENTS 1. S’rafe of Chha’rfisgar-h—Thr'ough its Collecfor, Soufh Bas‘rar, Dan‘rewada (C.G.). 2. The Revenue Board, Circuit Courf, Jagdalpur (C.6.) 3. The CollecTor, South Basfur, DanfeWada (6.6.). Presen’r: Mr. P.R. Pa’rankar‘, Advocate. : For ‘rhe peti’rioners. Mr'. A.5. Kachchawaha, Dy. Adv. General. : For respondem‘ No.1 “to 3. O R D R (Passed 011E uly, 2008) Dhirendra Mishra J 1. The peTiTioners by The instant pefHion have impugned ’rhe order da’red' 20.11.2006 (Annexure P-5) passed by The CollecTor, Sou’rh Bastar, Dan‘rewada whereby The CollecTor has imposed a penalTy of Rs.5,000/- againsT The peTiTioners and confiscaTed Teak Trees sTanding over ‘The land of The peTiTioner‘s, which were illegaHy fallen, under SecTion 241 (4) of The C.G. Land Revenue ‘Code, 1959 (for shorT 'Code’). The .peTiTioners have also impugned The order of Board of Revenue daTed 28.9.2007 (Annexure»P-7) whereby The appeal preferred by'The peTiTioners has been dismissed and The order of The CollecTor has been upheld. .Mr. PaTankar, learned counsel appearing for The peTiTioners vehemenTIy argued ThaT The proceedings under SecTion 241 of The Code is criminal in naTure, Therefore, burden of proving illegal felling of Trees by The peTiTioners lies on, The prosecuTion. The prosecuTion has failed To prove iTs case /./ l \./ l Page 2 of 4 beyond reasonable doubf as fhe witnesses i.e. Pafwari and Naib Tehsildar' examined by ’rhe prosecution, have categorically stated that they have not seen the petitioners felling the trees and they do not have any personal knowledge regarding felling of trees. However, learned revenue authorities relying upon the alleged confession of the petitioners that they were responsible for felling of trees, have held that the petitioners had cut the teak trees. He further argued that the petitioners have already deposited the fine amount of Rs.5,000/—, however, they being Bhumiswami of land over which the trees were standing, were entitled to the cost of timber and the trees in question were not liable for confiscation. . Heard learned counsel for the petitioners 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 petitioners vide order dated 24.6.2005. Their statements on oath were recorded in which they admitted that they have felled 31 teak trees standing over their bhumiswami land for the purposes of sale. They also stated that they were not aware of the rules & regulations regarding felling of trees and selling the same to the State. After recording that the petitioners have 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 petitioners. The petitioners in their reply of Annexure P—Z accepted that the trees standing over their'Bhumiswami land were illegally cut, however, they denied that they were responsible for the same and took a defence that the trees were cut by some unidentified person. It was f’urther'stated that since they were arrested kL Page 3 of 4 connecfion wi‘rh illegal felling of Trees over The governmen’r land and wer'e in jail Till 28.1.2006 and released only after lhey were acquih‘ed, Therefore, They could nof make any complaint againsf ’rhe felling of frees. 6. During enquiry Halka Pafwari Shri Suman Ram Hidko, Revenue Inspec‘ror Shri T.K. Pafel and Naib Tehsildar Shri R.N. Sai were examined by The prosecu’rion, whereas, The peTiTioners herein examined Themselves in Their idefence. The Naib Tehsildar in his sTaTemenT on oaTh has sTaTed ThaT he had recorded The sTaTemenTs of The peTiTioners on oaTh aT The Time of enquiry in which They confessed Their guilT and sTaTed ThaT They shall noT repeaT The offence in fuTure. However, all The prosecuTion wiTnesses have admiTTed ThaT They did noT personally see The peTiTioners felling Trees. 7. Learned CollecTor considering The sTaTemenTs 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 peTiTioners and ThaT The peTiTioners were incarceraTed in jail only from 10.8.2005, The defence of The peTiTioners 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. 8. In view of The admiTTed facT ThaT The'Trees were fallen on or before 4.9.2004 and The peTiTioners in Their sTaTemenTs on oaTh during enquiry before The Naib Tehsildar confessed felling of Trees,>Their conTenTion ThaT Though‘The Trees sTanding on Their. land were fallen buT They were npT responsible for The same as some unidenTified per/ion has ,1 ,/l9 \ age 4 of 4 fallen The frees and Tha* They could no‘r repor’r The maHer' To The CoIlecTor as They were in jail in The relevanT period, is noT born ouT from The evidence available on record and learned Collec‘l’or has righTly disbelieved The defence of The peTiTioners in This regand. 9. Therefore, in The considered opinion of This CourT, There is no illegaliTy, infirmiTy or jurisdicTional error commiTTed by The courTs below in passing The impugned orders of Annexure P—5 and P—7, warranTing inTerference in The exercise of jurisdicTion under ArTicle 227 of The ConsTiTuTion of India. The peTiTion has no meriT, The some deserves To be dismissed and accordingly, iT is hereby dismissed aT The admission sTage. 10. No order as To cosTs. Sdl" Dhirendra Mishra i.. Judge P