Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 222 (TRI)

Kanthiray Reang v. State of Tripura

2017-05-08

S.TALAPATRA

body2017
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. R.G. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. Chakraborty, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has urged this court to direct the respondents to comply the judgment and order dated 08.01.2016 passed in WP(C) 516 of 2015. By the said judgment, the Divisional Forest Officer under whose jurisdiction the non-forest areas of the petitioner is situated, was directed to issue Tree Registration Certificate (for short hereinafter referred to as TRC) in terms of Clause 3 of the notification dated 20.10.2010 within a month from the date of the said judgment. On receipt of the TRC, it was also observed, the petitioner may apply for permit with requisite information and testimonials for extraction of trees from their non-forest areas. On such application being made by the petitioners, such application shall be decided within 2(two) months from the date of receipt of such application, if the application is found in form in terms of the notification of extraction of trees from the non-forest areas dated 20.01.2010. But the respondents by a communication dated 13.05.2016 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) had communicated the petitioner that no tree was standing on his land comprised in CS plot No. 141/323, Khatian No. 35 of Mouja-Harimangal and, therefore, no TRC could be issued. The petitioner has challenged this decision of the respondents. The said communication was issued by the Sub Divisional Forest Officer, Ambassa, Dhalai, Tripura. 3. On the face of this communication, on the very day when the notice was issued, this court had occasion to observe as under: “The respondents shall file the reply within the returnable date by clarifying the aspect that when in the communication dated 03.02.2005, Annexure 2 to the writ petition, against the CS plot No. 141323 under Khatian No. 35 of Mouja- Harimangal Para there is shown trees standing on that particular plot, how the communication dated 13.05.2016, Annexure 9 to the writ petition, issued by the Sub Divisional Forest Officer dated 13.05.2016 has recorded that there is no tree standing in the CS plot No 141/323 under Khatian No. 35 of Mouja- Harimangal Para. The clarification must be in definite terms as this court is of the view that this matter may be decided with expedition and since there shall be an endeavor to hear the matter finally on the returnable date”. 4. Even the Officer namely Mr. Jaspal Debbarma , the Sub Divisional Forest Officer had appeared in person in the court and he had stated in the court that he did not find any tree standing on that land. Mr. Jaspal Debbarma, Sub Divisional Forest Officer appeared in this court on 21.10.2016. 5. This court did not place the total trust on the statement of that Officer and the respondents were asked to file a specific affidavit making a survey of the plot of the petitioner. Such affidavit has been filed by the respondents with photographs stating that they had physically visited that non-forest areas. From the affidavit, what appears is quite startiling. It is an example how irresponsibly a government Officer can make a statement before the court. In the affidavit filed on 06.05.2017, it has been averred as under: “That, in compliance of the order of the Hon’ble Court I am swearing this affidavit to the effect that I personally visited the plots in question and after proper demarcation of the plots I found that there are 100 nos. of trees standing on the plots. After spot verification I prepared a report and copy of the report which is enclosed as Annexure R-1 for consideration of the Hon’ble Court”. 6. This court has considered this report. The report shows that 100 nos. of trees are standing on the plot. A photograph is also the part of the said report dated 13.04.2014 (Annexure R/1 to the said affidavit). 7. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that now there shall be no difficulty in issuing the TRC. In view of this, the respondents, particularly the respondents No. 3 and 4 are directed to issue TRC in favour of the petitioner in respect of the said plot No. 141/322 and 141/323 corresponding to old plot No. 301 of Khatian No. 35 of Mouja-Harimangal Para within a period 30(thirty) days from the date when the petitioner shall submit a copy of this order to the respondents No. 3 and 4. The respondent No.1 is in particular, directed to take action against the respondent No.5 namely Mr. The respondent No.1 is in particular, directed to take action against the respondent No.5 namely Mr. Jaspal Debbarma, Sub Divisional Forest Officer for mis-conducting before this court and a report of such action be furnished before the Registry of this Court. This court has taken a very lenient view otherwise it is a fit case where a criminal contempt proceeding could have been drawn up. This Officer has not only made a false statement before this court but he had dared to do the same appearing in person before this court. 8. With this observation and direction, this writ petitions stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. A copy of this order be sent to the respondent No.1 with AD for compliance of the direction as made by this court. No order as to costs.