Beg Raj vs State of J. and K. and Others

S.K. Gupta, J.—Petitioner's house at village Latti, Tehsil Ram nagar, District Udhampur, was demolished during widening of the road by the

Public Works Department, for which the compensation was also received. The petitioner was, however, allowed to remove the old/used-timber

for which he obtained permission/sanction from the Forest Department.

The case of the petitioner is that he could not lift the timber during the period of sanction/permission and when he again applied to the

respondents for extension/ fresh permission, the same was refused, which necessitated him to approach the Court to seek a direction by issuance

of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant extension/permission for transportation of old/used timber of his demolished house explicitly

described in the prayer part of the writ petition.

The stand of the respondents in the reply is that the petitioner was permitted for transportation of timber in the year 1998. This permission was

valid up to 31-3-1998. The timber was not lifted by the petitioner within the period provided in the sanction and again applied for extension after a

period of one year and eight months from the expiry of earlier permission. The application of the petitioner was referred to the concerned

Divisional Forest Officer to examine the case and ascertain the genuineness of the stocks sought to be lifted by the petitioner.

The petitioner's application, however, stood rejected on the ground that there was variation in the number of scants and the measurement. The

petitioner initially sought permission for the lifting of 506 scants, but in subsequent application he seeks transportation of 449 scants and their

measurement does not tally with the scants for which the permission was earlier sought and granted in the year 1998.

It is well settled proposition of law that after the nationalization of the forest, felling of trees and transportation of timber, are prohibited. On the

application of the petitioner for transportation of old dismantled timber, the Divisional Forest Officer, Udhampur Forest Division, Udhampur

passed an order No. :-- UFD/4027-29, dated 27-7-2003 and reads as under :--

OFFICE OF THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, UDHAMPUR FOREST DIVISION, UDHAMPUR

ORDER

Sub ; Application for the transportation of old dismantled Timber by Sh. Beg Raj S/o Sh. Tara Chand R/o Dudu.

The application of Sh. Beg Raj S/o Tara Chand R/o Dudu for the transportation of old dismantled timber is hereby rejected on the following

grounds :--

(1) That, the transportation permission for 506 scants + 1007.10 cft. of old Deodar timber was granted in favour of the applicant vide this office

No. 7651-53, dt. 27-2-98, but due to some reasons, the applicant could not transport the same and the date of transportation permission expired

and has been reported by the Range Officer, Dudu vide his No. :-- Nil dt. 4-4-98.

(2) That, the applicant again applied for the renewal of the same permission on 9-10-99, after a lapse of twenty months for reasons better known

to him. Further, during the course of re-verification of the timber, a huge variation has been reported in the number of scants and measurements

(Volume) which figures 449 scants (923.70 cft.) instead of 506 scants=(1007.10 cft.). The verification has also been got conducted again vide this

office No. 3753/UFD, dt. 14-7-03, through a special team comprising of Sh. S. D. Singh, DDR Range Officer, Dudu, Sh. Mahesh Abrol Forester

B/O Kud Block and the concerned Block Officer for, reconfirmation of the details, which stand confirmed as 449 scants (923.73 cft.), report

submitted by the team vide Range Officer No. :-- 400, dt. 17-7-03.

Since, the applicant remained silent for over twenty months and spot re-verification shows that this timber is not the same for which the

transportation permission was granted it is clear that the original timber for which permission was granted stands already used/disposed of by him

and under the garb of the same, the applicant plans to transport some other timber from the concession zone to outside the concession zone with

his clear cut mala fide intentions, as there is a huge variation in the sizes and volume of timber.

(3) That, the Chief Conservator of Forests, Jammu vide his circular No. 1622-43, dt. 2-12-1999 has also prohibited the transportation of such

type of timber.

(4) That, the Hon'ble Forest Minister has also ordered a complete ban on the transportation of timber from concession zone to outside concession

zone during the decisions taken in the meeting held at Sidhra on 18-1-2003, duly communicated under the Pr. Chief Conservator of Forests J. and

K. No. :-- PCCF/Lease/Decisions/Meeting/125-26, dt. 22-1-2003.

No. :-- UFD/4027-29 D/- 27-7-2003.

(1) Copy submitted to the Conservator of Forests East Circle. This is in reference to his No. 693, dt. 19-4-2003.

(2) Copy to Sh. Beg Raj s/o Sh. Tara Chand and Range Officer Dudu for information.

Sd/-

Divisional Forest Officer,

Udhampur Forest Division

Udhampur.

The order in its plain reading, clearly envisages that spot verification was carried on the application of the petitioner for extension/sanction for

lifting of the old dismantled timber and found that the original timber, for which the permission was earlier granted, stands already used and

disposed of. The order further reveals that the petitioner now seeks to transport some other timber from the concession zone to outside the

concession zone. This is stated by the respondents on the basis of verification in size and volume of timber for which the permission was earlier

granted and the timber which is now found on spot after verification to be at variance in size and volume. There being a complete ban on the

transportation of timber from the concession zone to outside the concession zone, the petitioner is not entitled to either extension or permission for

transportation of the same, particularly when the timber on spot after re-verification has been found by the Competent Authorities to be not the

original timber, for which the permission was granted earlier and the same is stated to have been used.

In this view of the matter, the petitioner has not been able to show any cause or violation of any legally enforceable right, so as to seek

discretionary writ of mandamus in his favour by the Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.,..'

For what has been stated and discussed above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and is dismissed as not maintainable.