The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Rajyashri
2024 Latest Caselaw 5279 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

The State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Rajyashri on 21 February, 2024

Author: Maninder S. Bhatti

Bench: Maninder S. Bhatti

                                                            1
                           IN     THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                AT JABALPUR
                                                       BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI
                                             ON THE 21 st OF FEBRUARY, 2024
                                             WRIT PETITION No. 8604 of 2006

                          BETWEEN:-
                          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH THE
                          DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER (NORTH) PANNA (M.P.)

                                                                                         .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI PRAVEEN NAMDEO - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    RAJYASHRIWD/O     LAKHANLAL       RAVAT
                                AJAYGARH       TAH.AJAYGARH,DISTT.PANNA
                                (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    RAMKISHORE               TIWARI AJAYGARH
                                TAH.AJAYGARH,DISTT.PANNA        (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                                BOTH R/O AJAYGARH TAH. AJAYGARH DISTRICT
                                PANNA (M.P.)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI ISHTEYAQ HUSAIN - ADVOCATE )

                                This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                          following:
                                                             ORDER

This is a petition filed by the petitioner/State assailing the order dated 28.01.2003 passed by Board of Revenue, Gwalior.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner/State contends that in the present case, the respondent approached the Collector, Panna with an application under Section 241 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code and sought permission to cut as

many as 397 "Sagwan" Trees. The respondent before the Collector had taken

recourse to a stand that they were the owner of the property situated on Araji No.2/1-B/1 Area 2.209 Hectare Village Alampur Tehsil Ajaygarh District Panna, and therefore, they sought permission to cut the aforesaid trees which were standing on the land. The said application was allowed by the Collector vide order dated 25.01.1995. The order passed by the Collector was assailed by the State by filing an appeal before the Additional Commissioner, Division Sagar. The Additional Commissioner, Division Sagar vide order dated 19.12.1995 dismissed the said appeal. Against the order of Additional Commissioner, Division Sagar, the State then filed a second appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue, then vide order dated 28.01.2003 dismissed

the second appeal.

3. It is contended by the counsel that the area of village Alampur is protected forest in terms of a notification issued by the State Government dated 16.10.1967. Therefore, since the property in question is situated in village Alampur, Block Ajaygarh, the Collector had no power to grant any permission to cut the trees. It is further contended by the counsel that in terms of Section 4 of Indian Forest Act, the land which is earmarked as protected / reserved forest, no right can be assigned on the said land and any patta if on the land in question was there in favour of any of the parties, the same was nullity.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that the aforesaid aspects of the matter were not dealt with by the Authorities and in a purely mechanical manner, the permission initially was granted by the Collector vide order dated 25.01.1995 and thereafter, the Appellate Authority has also declined to interfere with the order of the Collector. It is contended by the counsel that all the Authorities have proceeded on an assumption that the village Alampur is

not earmarked as a reserved / protected forest within the meaning of the Indian Forest Act and thus, has proceeded to reject the stand of the present petitioner. It is contended by the counsel that notifications dated 03.05.1957 and 21.01.1968 were produced. The said notifications contain the detail that the Tehsil Ajaygarh is protected / reserved forest, and therefore, that aspect of the matter was required to be considered by the Authority but, in a purely mechanical manner, the appeal preferred by the State has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority. It is thus, contended by the counsel that impugned order deserves to be set aside.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in the present case, right from the very inception, the petitioner/State has failed to bring on record any notification to demonstrate that Village, Alampur has been earmarked as protected / reserved forest. It is further contended by the counsel that on the allegations of cutting of 73 trees out of total 397 trees, even the respondents were prosecuted as well but respondents were acquitted by a judgment dated 22.07.1998. The judgment of acquittal was assailed by the State by filing an appeal before this Court vide CRA No.204/2001. The said appeal was also dismissed vide judgment dated 03.12.2009. Thereafter, the judgment of this Court delivered in CRA No.204/2001 was assailed by filing SPL (Cr.) No.1185/2011. However, the said appeal was also dismissed vide order dated

28.01.2011.

6. It is thus, contended by the counsel that undisputedly, there is utter failure on the part of the petitioner/State to claim any right as regards the property in question. The property in question was purchased by the respondents vide a registered sale-deed dated 21.12.1982 from one Sulkha Dimar and accordingly, an application was made before the Collector for

cutting of 397 trees of "Sagwan" which were standing on the land in question. It is thus, contended by the counsel that Board of Revenue has not committed any error in dismissing the appeal preferred by the State and accordingly, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

7. No other point is pressed or argued by the parties.

8. Heard the submissions and perused the record.

9. In the present case, the respondents while claiming themselves to be the owner of Araji No.2/1-B/1 Area 2.209 Hectare, Village Alampur, Tehsil Ajaygarh, District Panna, moved an application before the Collector under Section 241 of M.P.L.R.C. In the said application filed under Section 241 of M.P.L.R.C., a notice to Divisional Forest Officer was given by the Collector, which is contained in page no.38. As per the said notice, the Divisional Forest Officer, North, Forest Division, Panna was also directed to submit a report. A perusal of the order of the Collector dated 25.01.1995 (Annexure-P/2) reflects that no report was submitted by the Divisional Forest Officer. However, a report was submitted by the Tahsildar, Ajaygarh who in his report dated 28.12.1994 expressed no objection regarding cutting of 397 trees of "Sagwan". Thus, while conferring with the report of Tahsildar, Ajaygarh, the Collector granted permission to cut 397 of "Sagwan" tress vide order dated 25.01.1995. The order passed by the Collector was assailed before the Additional Commissioner, Division Sagar and later on before the Board of Revenue. Before both the Authorities, the stand was taken by the State that the land on which the trees were standing were reserved forest and in order to demonstrate, reliance on a notification dated 26.01.1968 was placed. The said notification has been brought on record with the present petition also.

10. A perusal of the notification which has been brought on record reflects that in Tehsil, Ajaygarh certain Blocks were earmarked as reserved / protected forest. The said notification prima facie does not reflect the name of village, Alampur. As per the notification, there is reference to villages Behar, Sakariya and also Sukhwaha but village Alampur is not mentioned in the notification. The petitioner has also brought on record a copy of statement showing seat wise area of forest blocks in Panna Division. The said document also reveals that in range Ajaygarh certain blocks have been classified as Forest Blocks in which, the name of Blocks Bara, Harseni, Deohpar, Damchua, Ajaygarh-A, Ajaygarh-B and Ajaygarh are mentioned but there is no mention of village, Alampur. In the said statement only, there are mention of certain compartment number but from perusal of the said compartment number, it is not clear that as to whether village Alampur was also falling within the blocks which were earmarked as reserved / protected forest.

11. As analyzed above, the question which requires cogitative consideration is that as to whether village Alampur is included in any of Forest Blocks which are mentioned in the notification as discussed herein above. Th petitioner is required to demonstrate that village Alampur falls within the earmarked Forest Blocks in Tehsil Ajaygarh. As the issue has direct nexus with conservation and protection of forest, hence it would be conducive and proper to direct the Collector to deal with the application filed under Section 241 of M.P. Land Revenue Code afresh.

12. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 28.01.2003 passed by Board of Revenue, Gwalior, order dated 25.01.1995 passed by Collector, Panna and order dated 29.12.1995 passed by Additional Commissioner, Sagar Division

Sagar are quashed. The matter is remitted back to Collector, Panna to decide

the application filed by respondents under Section 241 of M.P.L.R.C. afresh within a period of 90 days from the date of production of certified copy of this order while extending opportunity of hearing to parties.

13. In view of the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed.

(MANINDER S. BHATTI) JUDGE mn