•.~-j- INJ-El^ BI<^;^mCT'!i®®:eHiiaSTtSSARH.AT^B,:]:&ASPHRi, SES1VBS8BK. ItESPBNDBNTS W.P. N6»B&G>_3 /2005 s /. ^•SdjJ.al'Sls^a&ss/^SSS.wffi.^ ;Kcasaia <Xis|&aS)»a;ageel^aN0B;t:/ years'r-.r^®:?v3El;liage1l®KaFisa— ^Qlj., ,Tehs!.i3.;:.MBapaF;, B.i.sfeC. :RaJaaiadga(m»' G.<3.;::1; \ '.wW^ y X.B s 'B s 't :': 1..:: 'naie..Steate .©f.iQa&afc't.i.sg.aEM^i; -Fsr'ssfe'?^ ;:®epar|aient^,|fa.R.S4^awaB:^|: Ba±par, e.S*::, :1: :);]":!' li?l?iili 'IB^IIBISiaBiffSISIIB® •'W SSSlSs!!sSSSisS' W.3'»"w: /:.%.•'The^ftddit±i6>Sal;i(epaj;leetc>r, jMst.iB.iLet:'".' '<£.©.'! ge^eaattS^ Si.'.'ThB'i'Beara.M i8S11Se^j3H8Bi;K ^mSJ,W!:;S:l::'- ^':'i^ ^'^:1 •,' '•i:^£lll:i. iil!i:ll:'.:i;'i!^'-lh!^:;ilVll |||SSU!SUIIItlaBiKis8SScii^jfc;2i|ag^2^|le®^ 'tfctristi.i.1:i.! (3o§ti|^.^|t3|i@sr,:, Bl.!S'fc.C;.]L<3t.ii^i|E|gty:!;,;']SB|!®< •^QKWSBISK "'':;i':';'®T!M3!ffiii! '•:':i^Sil!:']li XI-HC-22 3n^r%T .R-ii'bsn^T CTwofN y' s^ •<ii<ii<i<i, oTn'tt'is, Ricii^y 3ll^l Msich IIHCTI shlich —•—•••••••••••••• gq- 200 R<>«g'" "'""""" 3)1^1 ^+diwdfer ordfer 8^.2008 Shri A.K. Prasad petitibners. Shri N. K. Agrawa\,\ Sandeep Dubey, Govt. Advocjate for the By this common 3611/2005are being both the writ petitions. By these petitions the | propriety and correctness of| the Board of Revenue !n order dated 28-6-2004 Rajnandgaon in case No.04fA- werecut withthe permlssion| have been confiscated and Rs.5,000/- on each of the Boaixl of Revenue to the of 4 trees in respect oTW. F|. ofW.P. No.3611/2005 was i Facts are almost Advocate With the consent of petitions are being dispreed i^f finatly. wit(i Shri Rajesh Thwari, counsel for the Deputy Advocate General v^th Shn State/respondents. Wrlt Petitions No.3®)9/2005 and of, as the similar point is involved h ttte adtnt +i''if<-i'>(1-f *ittiftTffteIA<Ri+4i< • ^a.rf^TSn^r dispos^d Ipetitiohere have questtoned the t^dtty, Itheorder dated 30-14-2004 passed by N0.87-A/73/2003-04 and also the (jassed by the Addttionat Collector, No.04fA-73^003-04 whereby the trees whfeh of Tehsihtar from the agrteuftural fielete Additional Collector imposed a fine of Ipetltionere which was reduced by the of Rs.1,000/-. However, oonfisc^ion 1. No.36(%/2005and 17 trees In respect ntaintained. lidmitted, therefore, teamed Deputy General does not wjant to file any repjy of these petitions. letimed counsel for the jrarttes, the abo^ ID^te 11111 XI-HC-22 3ii^r?;r f^fwsn^r aii)wgf?tr 3??'<ii<il<'i<<, tSTflyis, Rx-iiuy 3il^l ^acft HWWl sflllch ••••••••••••••••••••• g^ 200 Rfc^"""'" '" sn^rgTHTWB^T -^. owner of land bearing Khaa moved an application under tii<<FM<n-i iiiciTffteIil'<Ri<^i< ^STi^Tsn^T In W. P. No.36(»/200^the petitioner's case te that he »th® •a No.257 area 4.14 acres situated at village Bharritola, P. H. No|25under Ra|Sswa Nirikshak Mandat, Manpur. Four teak trees vwr^ standing in hfe agriculturd land. He Section 240 of the Madh^i Pradesh Land Revenue Code before fie TehsiMar to grant permission to cut those trees. The said pem|iissk>n was granted by Tehsildar vide 4. However, Patwari mactea umS.D.O. reported the matter to the order dated 30ttl January 20C|- report to the S.D.O. and in Collector from where he tr^nsferred the case to the Ackiitional Collector. The Addtttonal Cojllector yide order dated 28-6-2004 hekf that trees in question hav^ Coltector, therefore, trees ar^ confiscated anda fine of Rs.5,000/- imposed. Simitar is the case petitionar sought permission been cut without permission of the of W.P.No.^11/2005 in whtoh the 'rom Tehsiklar for outting 17 trees from his.field and in tum Teh^ildar grarrted permission vide order Annexure-P/2 dated 30 Jarluary 2004. Patwari made a report to the S.D.O. andS.D.O. repoijted the matter to the Coltectorand the Cottector transferred this maflter to theAddittonal Collector who vide order dated 28-6-2004 held {hat trees in questton were cut without permission of the Coltector, fine of Rs.5,Q(X)/- imposed. therefore, trees are confiscated and a XI-HC-22 sn^T^ir l^fwsn^T aOTWHfer v 3:s9''^l4ls'f'i|,wflwi<e, Ridi'yy. 3ll^lH?|ch iiini (n*iitn ••••••••••••••••••••• gq- 200 Rre^ Against these ordws, *i<<Fci<fl-i ii*i<iTfffci<rl <fii«i< ^aif^irCT^T both the petitioners preferred an appeat before the Revenue Board ahd in tum Revenue Board dsmi^ed the appeal holding that in question cufwithout permlsston of the Collector and Tehslldar w(as not entitled tQ grant permission, therefore, confiscation was tnalntained. However, fine amount was reduced from Rs.5,000/- to^sA ,000/-. It is admitted positk)n|that the petitioners were the owners of trees in questron and they cijt trees onlyafter taking permission from Tehsildar, therefore, it c^nnot be said that without seeklng permission or approaching pevenue Authorities, they cut frees and the Tehsildar concemed. gr^nted permfesiOTi to the petttionere for cutting trees. If the Tehs|dar was not knowing that who is the competent authority to grarrt permission, then hcw from an illiterate viltager it can be ©(pectedt|iat he ought to have sought pennisslon from the Collector. Even though Revenue Board has ordered for enquiry against TehsiUar, tjut so far what has happened it is not known. I Since the petitionere |cut tre^ after gettihg permission from Tehsildar, Ig the peculiar facjts and circumstances ofthe case, ends of justice would meet if the cjrdere passed by the Additionat Coltector and.the Revenue Board aresfet aside. Now, since the tree^ aside the impugned orders, havs already been out, whlle settlr^ it is directed that logs in questton be handed over to the Forest Department and in tum tt»e Forest XI-HC-22 sii^f^a' f^IWStlSsT gBiraT'df?g' gfe1 Ban/e Ifc. S^.^l'illd*!, Wltf'16, Rlfliuy Sll^l <45|ch *lllMl »i*<|th""""""""""" W]' 200 f^^ Department would asses tl^ vatue <rf logs aml to psy the^assessed aimount to the petitioners. vyith ttie dlrection atjor^aid, 6 above writ petiflon^^and disposedof.. In view of this ordeji dispo^dof. '- Parties areentitled for' q>Nf<1<fl-f1111'lTfffeA<Rl«]<. ^3rf^IT 311^1 r, atl the pending c^ptteatims stand »rtiriedcopy of this orcter. 'Sdl- ^C.s^adoo 3udge