Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 21 (UTT)

Dalip Singh v. State Of Uttaranchal

2007-01-24

DHARAM VEER, P.C.VERMA

body2007
JUDGMENT Dharam Veer, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for writ of mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 3 to issue him transit pass (Ravanna) for transportation of wood logs from Suakot Pokhari to Haldwani Town. 2. Brief facts of the case as narrated by the petitioner are that petitioner is permanent resident of Village Suwakot Pokhari, Patti Padampur, Tehsil Dhari and Bhumidhar Tenure Holder of Khet Nos. 869, 871, 902, 903, 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003/2 and 30 situated in the revenue area of the said village and some trees of different varieties were also situated in the bhumidhari land of the petitioner. The petitioner moved an application before the District Magistrate, Nainital with a prayer to issue ownership certificate about the said trees. The District Magistrate, Nainital after making necessary enquiry issued ownership certificate of the trees in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application before respondent No. 3 to cut the trees which were dry and affected by the diseases. The respondent No. 3 thereafter called a report from the 'Van Kshetridhikari' 'Dana'. After receiving the said report of Van Kshetridhikari Danda, the respondent No. 3 granted permission to cut the eleven trees of 'Sal', two trees of 'Sain' and one tree of 'Tun'. The permission to mark the trees and cutting the trees was given vide letter dated 2-6-2000 by respondent No. 3 and period of completion of cutting the trees was up to 30-7-2000 and a copy of this permission letter was also forwarded to District Magistrate, S.S.P. Nainital and Incharge of Sharda Range. It has been stated in the writ petition that the petitioner cut the trees, permission of which was given by the Forest Officials and their logs were also collected in the presence of the Departmental Officers. The respondent No. 3 granted transit pass to transport the cutted logs to nearest town Haldwani and the transit permission was valid from 8-6-2001 to 13-6-2001. It has been alleged in the writ petition that the petitioner got some logs transported to Haldwani but some logs remained at the spot untransported due to starting of rainy season and transit pass was not extended and wood logs are still lying at the spot. Thereafter, on 12-5-2004 the petitioner moved an application with the prayer to issue transit pass before the respondent No. 3. Thereafter, on 12-5-2004 the petitioner moved an application with the prayer to issue transit pass before the respondent No. 3. The respondent No. 3 thereafter called a report from the subordinate forest officials about the matter. Thereafter, again on 5-1 -2005, the petitioner again moved an application for issuance of transit pass for the transportation of logs. The respondent No. 3 again called a report from sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Haldwani vide letter dated 7-2-2005, In compliance of the report required by respondent No. 3, the Van Kshetradhikari gave his report about the position of the wood logs lying at the spot. On the basis of the above report given by Van Kshetradhikari, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the prayer to command the respondent No. 3 to issue him transit pass Ravanna for transportation of wood logs from Suakot Pokhari to Haldwani town. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 3 by Sri Kapil Lai, D.F.O Haldwani, Nainital, in which it has been stated that the petitioner was granted permission for cutting eleven Sal Trees, two Sain Trees and one Tun tree from his own settled land on the recommendation and report of District Magistrate, Nainital and on the basis of spot inspection report of Dy. Divisional Forest Officer (Sharda) by Divisional Forest Officer, Haldwani vide sanction letter dated 2-6-2000. Thereafter, the transit permission was granted to the petitioner by Divisional Forest Officer, Haldwani vide his permission letter dated 7-6-2001 and according to the said letter, the petitioner was directed to transit the Timber Trees from 8-6-2001 to 13-8-2001 via Chaurgalia Dani Bangar to Haldwani as prayed by the petitioner and for that purpose, eight transit passes were also issued to the petitioner. It has also been stated that like the petitioner several other villages/ farmers of Village Suwakot also applied for cutting and transit of dried trees standing in their settled agricultural plots at the relevant time and permission was granted to them also. It has also been stated that like the petitioner several other villages/ farmers of Village Suwakot also applied for cutting and transit of dried trees standing in their settled agricultural plots at the relevant time and permission was granted to them also. It was noticed in the relevant period that some of the villagers of the aforesaid village have made unauthorized and illegal felling of 28 Sal trees, 9 Pine trees and 1 Tun tree in the adjoining forest of Village Suwakot with a view to transit the aforesaid illegal felled trees/ Timber along with the Timber collected from the felling of the trees from their settled land for which they have obtained sanction. The Timber made from the aforesaid illegal cutting was collected at different places and road side of the adjoining reserve forest and report was also lodged against the aforesaid crime by the department and proceeding was started under the Indian Forest Act. Departmental proceedings were also initiated against the concerned officials of Forest Department who were prima facie found responsible for the aforesaid illegal felling. 4. It has also been stated that the petitioner has exhausted the transit permission and transit passes issued to him in the 2001 and since 2001, he did not make any further request stating that he could not transit all the timber. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application dated 12-5-2004 and 6-1-2005 wherein he has only stated that transit pass be issued to him regarding transportation of the sanctioned timber from his settled land. On the application of the petitioner, a report was called for from the Range Officer, Dunda Forest Range, Durga Pipal who submitted his report to Sub Divisional Officer wherein he has given certain details regarding the timber and its measurement said to be belonging to the petitioner. However, the Sub Divisional Officer after considering the report of Range Officer further directed him to clarify a supplementary report whether the said timber is lying in the settled land of the petitioner or in the reserve forest by his order dated 18-6-2005. 5. Thereafter, the Forest Ranger submitted his second report dated 21-6-2005 wherein he stated that the said timber regarding which he has given his earlier report is lying at various places near motor road in reserve forest area far away from the Village Suwakot Pokhari. 5. Thereafter, the Forest Ranger submitted his second report dated 21-6-2005 wherein he stated that the said timber regarding which he has given his earlier report is lying at various places near motor road in reserve forest area far away from the Village Suwakot Pokhari. It has further been stated in the report that there is no hammer mark of the petitioner in the timber. (Hammer mark is a mark impressed in the log/timber by the person to whom sanction is granted and for that purpose he is also given hammer mark by the Forest Department). The Forest Ranger also clarified that the petitioner has not even sought any permission to transport and collect the timber from his settled land to the reserve forest area. Thus, since the log/timber is lying in the forest area and there is no hammer mark of the petitioner in it, as such it cannot be said that the timber for which the petitioner is seeking transit pass belongs to him. After receiving the aforesaid report, the Dy. Divisional Forest Officer, Sharda Forest Division, Haldwani declined to give recommendation for issuing transit pass to the petitioner. 6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record. 7. After receiving the application of the petitioner, a report was called for from the Range Officer by the respondent No. 3 and after receiving the report of Range Officer, a further direction was issued by Deputy Forest Officer to Forest Ranger seeking certain clarifications in the matter. The Forest Ranger, thereafter submitted his second report wherein it was clarified that there is no Timber lying in the field of the petitioner and whatever Timber is lying in the reserve forest, it does not contain any hammer mark of the petitioner and the same is lying in the reserve forest far from the village of the petitioner and there is no marks of the concerned Kashtkar or tenure holder and no Hammer Mark is there on these logs of the wood for which the petitioner took the permission to transport his timber and logs from his land to the reserve forest area the ownership of the petitioner on the above said timber and logs which is lying in the forest area was not established. This report was submitted by the Van Kshetradhikari, Dunda Forest Range, Durga Pipal to Dy. This report was submitted by the Van Kshetradhikari, Dunda Forest Range, Durga Pipal to Dy. Divisional Forest Officer (Sharda). With the counter-affidavit, a report dated 15-7-2005 has also been filed submitted by Sri Anand Chandra Arya, Deputy Divisional Forest Officer, Sharda, Haldwani Forest Division, Haldwani, in which he has clearly stated that as per the report of Van Kshetradikari Danda, there is no timber and woods lying in the Nap Land of the petitioner and whatever the timber and logs are lying, that is lying in the reserve forest area and for that reason he has recommended not to issue any transit pass to the petitioner. 8. As per the report dated 21-6-2005 submitted by the Van Kshetradhikari and as per the report dated 15-7-2005 given by Deputy Divisional Forest Officer, it is established and abundantly clear that the petitioner has failed to establish that he is the owner of the above said timber/logs which was lying in the reserve forest area. The petitioner has also failed to establish that this is the woods and logs in which he was granted the permission to cut and transport the trees on 8-6-2001 to 13-8-2001 and also no hammer mark on the said timber/wood is present, hence the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as claimed by him. Hence, it is clear that the ownership of the petitioner cannot be established regarding timber in dispute. 9. In view of |the above discussions, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Petition dismissed.