Sallu Lal And Others vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:

"7.1 To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to quash Annexure P-1 in so far as it adds rider of obtaining additional certificate regarding the land been not in forest land as a condition of cutting of the trees.

7.2 To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to quash Annexure P-2.

7.3 To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus to direct the respondents to put hammer marks on the trees so that the same may be sold to the forest department.

7.4 Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may also be passed in the interest of justice including costs of the petition."

The relevant facts for adjudication of this matter are that the petitioners are claiming themselves to be owner/bhumiswami of land khasra No.93, Rakba 0.38 hectare. The claim is based on the 'Rin Pustika' and revenue entries Annexure P/3 and P/4.

The petitioners preferred an application seeking permission to cut certain number of trees situated in their land. The Sub Divisional Officer(Forest) vide communication dated 21.07.2011 Annexure P/6 placed reliance and agreed with the report of Range Officer, Kevlari and opined that 27 Sagon trees (Teak Trees) can be permitted to be cut. Shri Ruprah submits that in turn, the trees were cut and deposited in the depot of Forest Department. However, Tehsildar, Kevlari by order dated 08.02.2012 disagreed with the permission to cut the treest on the ground that the land in question is adjacent to Aharwada-Patan Forest road and; therefore, permission cannot be granted. The said order of Tehsildar could not sustain judicial scrutiny. In Revenue Case No.1A-62/2013-14, dated 21.08.2014 Annexure P/7 accorded permission to cut 27 teak trees with the condition that cut trees shall be sold to forest department. Shri Ruprah submits that order dated 18.09.2014 is bad in law whereby despite previous adjudication the hindrance is created that the land in question is a forest land or not needs to be examined. The impugned order dated 01.04.2015 Annexure P/2 is bad in law in as much as it was held that land khasra No.93 is a forest land. Shri Ruprah submits that there is no basis to hold that the land in question is a forest land.

Learned counsel for the petitioner by taking this court to the rejoinder and documents filed with it urged that the land is still shown as revenue land in the revenue records and names of petitioners are still reflected in the latest revenue record. He contended that there is no existence of any such notification dated 01.04.1969 on which reliance is placed in para 3 of the return. In addition, he placed reliance on Annexure R/2 and stated that no alternative land has ever been provided to the petitioner nor his land has ever been acquired and treated as forest land.

Per contra, Shri Shamim Ahmad, learned Government Advocate supported the impugned order on the strength of the return field by the respondents. He submits that the date of notification is perhaps wrongly mentioned in para 3 of the return as 01.04.1969 whereas it should be read as 10.07.1958 Annexure R/1. He opposed the relief on the stregnth of Annexure R/1 and R/2. In rejoinder submission, Shri Ruprah submits that he has filed certain documents with the IA and urged that during the pendency of this petition, the cut trees have been shifted from one depot to another depot situated at Bamandehi, District Seoni under the Forest Department.

No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The aforesaid factual matrix leaves no room for any doubt that petitioners prayed for a permission to cut certain number of trees situated at their land. The SDO after considering the report of Range Officer submitted favourable report on 21.07.2011 Annexure P/6. Indisputably, trees were already cut and deposited in the depot of forest department. It is equally not in dispute that order dated 21.08.2014 which was in favour of petitioner has attained finality.

The pivotal question is whether on the strength of return and annexure, petitioners' land can be treated to be forest land.

The respondents in para 3 of return placed reliance on a notification dated 01.04.1969 Annexure R/1. No such annexure of said date has been filed. The annexure dated 10.07.1958 is pregnant with a schedule which reads as under:

Schedule

All such forest land which has vested in the State by virtue of the provisions contained in that behalf in Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated lands) Act, 1950 (I of 1951), and has been transferred to the Forest Department for management but has not so far been declared as Reserved Forest or Protected Forests.

By order and in the name of the Governor of Madhya Pradesh,

R.S. VARMA, Dy. Secy.

(Emphasis supplied)

A careful reading of this 'schedule' makes it clear that it deals with "such forest land" which are vested in the State Government pursuant to provisions of Act of 1950. In order to establish application of this annexure/schedule dated 10.07.1958, the minimum requirement was to show that petitioners' land was one 'such forest land' which was vested in the State Government by virtue of the provisions contained in the Act of 1950 mentioned in the schedule. There is no material available on record to substantiate the same and; therefore, I am unable to hold that pursuant to operation of Annexure dated 10.07.1958, petitioners' land became the forest land. Pertinently, the petitioners in furtherance of this court's order dated 06.03.2018 filed a rejoinder pregnant with relevant documents, but for the reasons best known to the respondents they have not cared to file any additional return despite direction of this court. Thus, I find no reason to disbelieve the claim of the petitioner that the payment of trees cut from his land and kept in fresh depot needs to be given to the petitioner. Since Annexure R/1 does not establish with accuracy and precision that land in question is a forest land, Annexure R/2 does not help the respondents.

In view of aforesaid analysis, the impugned orders dated 18.09.2014 and 01.04.2015 Annexure P/1 and P/2 cannot be permitted to stand. The same are set aside. Respondents are directed to put Hammer mark on trees (if not already marked) and pay the requisite payment in lieu of those trees to the petitioners. The entire exercise be completed within 60 days from the date of communication of this order.

Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.