JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. The challenge in this petition is made to order dated 15.06.2023, passed by the respondent no.5, whereby an application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking permission to fell trees has been rejected. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. On behalf of the residents of Village Jaina, Gram Panchayat Gumta, District Almora instant petition has been filed. It is the case in the petition that Gram Pradhan of Village Jaina did move an application seeking permission for felling the Pine trees in the village area with the assurance that they would plant trees in lieu thereof. This application was moved on 05.09.2022, on which, an inquiry was conducted. The forest officials recommended that, in fact, the Pine trees are dangerous to the crops, but finally by the impugned order, the application has been rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the rejection has been made on wrong premise. The permission was sought on behalf of the petitioner under the provisions of The Uttar Pradesh Protection of Trees in Rural and Hill Areas Act, 1976 (“the Act”), but in the impugned order, the amended provision of the Act, as was applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh in 2001, has been quoted which is not applicable in the State of Uttarakhand. 5. Learned counsel would submit that any amendment made by the State of Uttar Pradesh in the Act after creation of the State of Uttarakhand would not per se apply in the State of Uttarakhand. 5. Learned counsel would submit that any amendment made by the State of Uttar Pradesh in the Act after creation of the State of Uttarakhand would not per se apply in the State of Uttarakhand. He would submit that Section 5 of the Act, as applicable in the State of Uttarakhand is as follows:- “5- Permission to fell or remove trees- The competent authority may, on the application of any person entitled to fell a standing tree or to cut, remove or otherwise dispose of a fallen trees, after making such inquiry, as it thinks fit, grant permission to him to do so: Provided that such permission shall not be refused if the tree constitutes danger to person or property: Provided further that except in such area as may be notified by the State Government in this behalf such permission shall not be required for the felling of any tree with a view to appropriating the wood or leaves thereof for bona fide use for purposes of fuel, fodder, agriculture implements or other domestic use: Provided also that such immediate steps as are necessary to remove any obstruction or nuisance or to prevent any danger may be taken without such permission.” 6. Learned counsel also raised the following points in his submissions:- (i) The forest officials reported that the Pine trees is dangerous category of tree because it's needle destroy the crops. (ii) There is no provision in the Act that each individual should make a separate application. (iii) Pine tree is not restricted category of trees. (iv) There is no ban on the permission of cutting Pine trees in the holders. The order has been based on some assumptions that there may be problem with regard to the ownership and complaint in future. 7. Instant case depicts a very strange story. The petition has been presented in represented capacity by one Bhuwan Chandra Joshi. “No Objection Certificate” (Annexure No.1) is purportedly signed by the Village Pradhan and after its signature there are few more signatures on it. According to it the villagers had authorized Village Pradhan to seek permission for felling trees in their holdings. It bears no date on it. The Village Pradhan himself cannot give “No Objection” to himself. Who are these villagers? Who have purportedly signed on Annexure No.1? 8. According to it the villagers had authorized Village Pradhan to seek permission for felling trees in their holdings. It bears no date on it. The Village Pradhan himself cannot give “No Objection” to himself. Who are these villagers? Who have purportedly signed on Annexure No.1? 8. The part of Annexure No.1 is a kind of power of attorney, by which, Village Pradhan has purportedly authorised Bhuwan Chandra Joshi to take action in this matter. It is dated 25.12.2022, but prior to it, it is the case of the petitioner that the Village Pradhan himself had applied for permission to fell trees on the holdings of the villagers. It is true that on the application filed by the Village Pradhan of Village Jaina, the Forest Officer inquired into the matter and observed that, in fact, permission has been sought to fell about 1055 trees. Annexure No.8 is the report. It also says that the trees may be kept in a dangerous category. 9. The impugned order although quotes amended provisions of the Act, but that per se may not be a ground to vitiate the order. Section 5 of the Act, as applicable has already been quoted hereinabove. 10. In the impugned order the respondent no.5 has recorded that the application for felling trees should be given by a person on whose land the trees are standing; there should be separate applications; joint applications may not be entertained for such purpose. In point no.6 of the impugned order, the respondent no.5 has recorded that since permission for felling down huge numbers of trees has been sought, it may, in future, create problems with regard to ownership of the trees. It has also been apprehended that joint application may give rise to boundary disputes and complaints. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that it is an assumption. 11. The Act provides procedure for taking permission to cut trees. The power of attorney holder, even could not explain as to what is his interest in the felling of trees in Village Jaina. Even for the sake of arguments Annexure No.1 is taken as true to reveal that villagers have authorized the Village Pradhan, Jaina to take action in this matter, it cannot be stretched to the extent that Village Pradhan may authorized Bhuwan Chandra Joshi to file a petition. Even for the sake of arguments Annexure No.1 is taken as true to reveal that villagers have authorized the Village Pradhan, Jaina to take action in this matter, it cannot be stretched to the extent that Village Pradhan may authorized Bhuwan Chandra Joshi to file a petition. Though, as observed, Annexure No.1 is purportedly signed by the Village Pradhan authorizing the Village Pradhan to act on behalf of the villagers and after signature of the Village Pradhan there are few signatures without revealing, as to who these persons are. Are they owner of any property in the village? If so, how many trees are standing in their property? This Annexure No.1 per se may not be taken for granted that the trees, for felling of which, the permission is sought are standing on their lands. 12. Section 5 of the Act inter alia provides that the competent authority on an application of any person entitled to fell a standing tree or to cut it otherwise, etc. may after making such inquiry grant such permission. The impugned order records that since the application is joint, there may be boundary disputes in future. The number of trees, as stated, is huge. In such cases, first and foremost it is required to be ascertained as to in whose land the trees are standing? Who is the owner of the land? Has the application been filed by the owners? And if so, what are the reasons for seeking such permission? Why to cut the trees? It is only thereafter, perhaps the competent authority, may be in a position to take a decision under Section 5 of the Act, so as to grant or not to grant the permission to fell down the trees. 13. In the impugned order, this is what is stated by the respondent no.5. He has written that a joint application may not ascertain, as to in whose land the trees are standing? Who is the owner? These apprehensions are not mere apprehensions. They are, in fact, genuine concern. Factually speaking, the respondent no.5 has not denied permission for felling trees. By the impugned order, the respondent no.5 has expressed that application by each individual should be preferred. If the respondent no.5, who is a person competent under the Act to consider such application, raised such concern, it may not be said that it is a baseless and based on assumption. By the impugned order, the respondent no.5 has expressed that application by each individual should be preferred. If the respondent no.5, who is a person competent under the Act to consider such application, raised such concern, it may not be said that it is a baseless and based on assumption. 14. The Court fails to apprehend, as to what prevent an individual to move an application seeking permission to fell the trees, if it really causes harms to his crops? In fact, this Court apprehends that it is a design by someone to cut the trees for other purpose. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to make any interference in this matter. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 15. The petition is dismissed in limine.