Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 260 (CHH)

ANIL KUMAR JAIN v. STATE OF M. P.

2012-10-05

SATISH K.AGNIHOTRI

body2012
ORDER 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the legality and validity of the circular/order dated 23.11.1996 (Annexure - P/1 passed by the respondent No.2, by which the -respondent No.2 restrained the Zila Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat, Gram Panchayat from issuing the Transit Permits (for short "the T.P."), and also the memo dated 09.12.1996 (Annexure - P/2) issued by the respondent No.2 to the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry, Ambikapur, in respect of transportation of the cut trees. 2. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that the petitioner is a businessman and is dealing in sale and supply of several goods including timber and wood. In the year 1996, the petitioner purchased Haldu trees growing in the lands belonging to Bhuswamis of Village Asandih, Gram Panchayat Asandih, Tahsil Wadrafnagar, District Sarguja. Thereafter, the Bhomiswamis made an application before the Sarpanch and requested for issuance of the T.Ps. for the transportation of wood (Haldu). The Sarpanch by memo dated 30.01.1997 (Annexure - P/3) requested the Tahsildar for verification of the wood cut by the Bhomiswamis so that the T.Ps. could be issued. The petitioner also submitted an application on 01.02.1997 (Annexure - P/4) before the respondent No.2 and requested that the respondent No.5 may be directed to take appropriate action on the application submitted by the Sarpanch. 3. After verification, the respondent No.5 submitted its report on 24.02.1997 (Annexure - P/5) before the respondent No.3 stating that the trees cut by the villagers were of Haldu except two trees which have been cut by the Bhumiswami-namely, Vidya Sagar and the same fall within the provisions of Section 240 of the M.P./C.G. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (for short "the Code 1959"). The said report was forwarded by the respondent No.3 to the respondent No.2 by memo dated 24.02.1997 (Annexure - P/6). However, on account of the orders dated 23.11.1996 (Annexure - P/1) and 09.12.1996 (Annexure - P/2), the respondent authorities are not permitting the Gram Panchayat, Asandih to issue the T.Ps. in favour of the petitioner. Hence this petition. 4. Shri Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that since the cutting of Haldu trees is not prohibited under the provisions of Section 240 of the Code 1959 and the Gram Panchayat is having jurisdiction, the respondent authorities cannot restrict the Gram Panchayat, Asandih from granting the T.Ps. in favour of the petitioner. Hence this petition. 4. Shri Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that since the cutting of Haldu trees is not prohibited under the provisions of Section 240 of the Code 1959 and the Gram Panchayat is having jurisdiction, the respondent authorities cannot restrict the Gram Panchayat, Asandih from granting the T.Ps. Shri Gupta would further submit that the Revenue Officers have no authority or jurisdiction for restricting the bhumiswamis from cutting such trees, which do not fall under the provisions of Section 240 of the Code 1959. Shri Gupta would next submit that the impugned action of the respondent Collector is absolutely illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law. On account of the impugned orders, the petitioner is facing lot of difficulties including acute financial crises. 5. On the other hand, Shri Bhaduri, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, would submit that the order dated 23.11.1996 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Collector, is simply a direction to the Zila Panchayat, Janpad Panchayat, Gram Panchayat, etc. to prevent the illegal cutting of trees and by another order dated 09.12.1996 (Annexure - P/2) a direction, was given to deal with the trees already cut and are lying in the fields. Shri Bhaduri, would further submit that under Section 179 of the Code 1959 it is specifically mentioned that right in the trees standing on the land of a bhumiswami would be of such bhumiswami only, therefore, any other person would have no right to cut trees standing in the field of a bhumiswami. The present petitioner, other timber merchants and contractors in utter violation of the provisions of Section 179 of the Code, 1959 were cutting trees standing on the fields of bhumiswamis. 6. Shri Bhaduri, would also submit that the concerned Gram Panchayat was acting in violation of the law and procedure prescribed for issuing the T.Ps. Under the circumstances, the respondent No.2 being the head of the administration in the district had to take appropriate step in public interest especially protecting the interest of the poor tribes and villagers, therefore, the respondent No.2 has taken the trees already cut into his possession for being auctioned so that suitable amount could be given to the bhumiswamis from whose lands the trees were cut; without interference of the brokers, contractors and timber merchants. Hence, the action of respondent No.2 is fully justifiable and well within the competence, power and authority. Shri Bhaduri, would next submit that the instant petition has not been filed by any Bhumiswari whose rights are allegedly being said to be affected, but by a timber merchant who has no locus standi to agitate the alleged grievances of such bhumiswamis. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief and the petition may be dismissed. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 8. The Collector having been informed that anti social elements are engaged in illegal cutting of trees held a meeting on 23.11.1996 in presence of Sub Divisional Officers, Forest. Range Officers and Deputy Collectors, wherein, it was decided not to issue the T.Ps. without verification of permission etc. in respect of cutting of trees and further decided to initiate proceedings under the criminal, revenue and forest Laws against those officers and employees who have facilitated cutting of illegal trees. If the trees are cutting illegally then issue show cause notice and thereafter proper action be taken. In the said meeting it was also decided not to issue any T.Ps. for transportation of the above stated woods. 9. The memo dated 9.12.1996 (Annexure - P/2), which is also sought to be impugned herein, is a communication by the Collector, Sarguja (Ambikapur) to the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry, Ambikapur, that all the cut trees be transported to the forest depot at Ramanujganj & Ambikapur, thereafter, the same be auctioned and the transportation charges be also deducted from the auction amount. 10. The Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Asandih, had made an application to the Tahsildar, Wadrafnagar, on 30.1.1997 (Annexure - P/3) for verification of the trees. Thereafter, it appears, the petitioner has also made an application to the Collector on 1.2.1997 (Annexure - P/4) for verification of the trees cut by the petitioner with the consent of the farmers. No document has been produced by the petitioner to establish the fact asto whether any application was made by the farmers for grant of TPs and if there was any refusal, the farmers either through Sarpanch or individually could have approached this Court, which they have not done. At the instance of the petitioner, wherein, he has not challenged the rejection of the T.Ps. At the instance of the petitioner, wherein, he has not challenged the rejection of the T.Ps. to the farmers as well as no action for issuance of T.Ps. to farmers, this petition is not maintainable. 11. The petitioner has not challenged any order, which has prevented transportation of wood allegedly cut by the petitioner with the consent of the farmers. The petitioner has not produced any agreement or document to indicate that the trees standing on the land of several farmers were cut by the petitioner with prior consent of the farmers. 12. On perusal of the documents, it is found that the Additional Collector, Sarguja (Ambikapur) submitted a report to the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the instant petition on 23.1.1999 holding that if there was an agreement the same was oral and the amount as promised by the petitioner was not paid. Most of the agriculturists were illiterates and according to them their signatures or thumb impressions were taken on papers, which they did not understand. 13. The contention of the petitioner that the farmers are protected under the provisions of the Code, 1959 to cut such trees has no basis, as by the M.P. Land Revenue Code (Amendment) Act, 1996 after sub-section (3) Section 240 of the Code, 1959, sub-sections (4) (5) & (6) were substituted by gazette notification dated 25.3.1996 (Annexure-R/l). 14. Sub-sections (4) (5) & (6) Section 240 of the Code, 1959 provides that the land owners would be free to cut the trees. It was further provided that the land owner may cut the trees on his own and thereafter, dispose of the same as per the memo dated 9.12.1996. The petitioner has failed to establish that there was any contract between the farmers and the petitioner. 15. As per the provisions of Section 240 of the Code, 1959 if the farmer wants to cut the trees in his field, he has to plant 5 times of trees under the care of Village Forest Suraksha Samiti/Gram Panchayat Forest Suraksha Samiti. There is no pleading on facts put forward by the petitioner that the provisions of the Code, 1959 have been complied with in its letter and spirit. 16. There is no pleading on facts put forward by the petitioner that the provisions of the Code, 1959 have been complied with in its letter and spirit. 16. Having regard to the fact that a special meeting was called on 23.11.1996 in view of the fact that the Collector was apprehensive of illegal cutting of trees by anti social elements and others other than farmers in Wadrafnagar, Pratappur, Rajpur, Raghunathnagar, Maheshpur, Balangi, etc. and a serious decision was taken to prevent the illegal cutting and transportation of the same contrary to the provisions of law, as any tree which was permitted to cut either with permission or without permission, the disposal of the same was to be done in the forest depots and accordingly, instruction was issued by memo dated 9.12.1996, I do not find any illegality and infirmity in the decision, which was taken in the abovestated circumstances to ensure that no trees are cut illegally and particularly looking into the issue, which involves cutting of trees from the land on the basis of some oral consent of the farmers, the petition has no merit. 17. As an upshot, the writ petition, sans substratum, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Petition Dismissed.