Uttarakhand High Court

WPMS/2576/2023 on 11 July, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                                    2025:UHC:6026
             Office Notes,
                reports,
               orders or
             proceedings
SL.
      Date   or directions              COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
                  and
              Registrar's
              order with
              Signatures
                             WPMS 2576/2023
                             Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Ms. Neetu Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. S.K. Nailwal, Standing Counsel, with Mr. Sushil Vashistha, Brief Holder, for the State.

(2) Petitioner is challenging the order dated 1.6.2023, passed by Deputy Director, Consolidation, Haridwar in Application No. 33 of 2022. Perusal of the said order reveals that after losing the case right up to High Court, petitioner moved an application seeking permission to cut the eucalyptus trees standing over the land in question. Deputy Director, Consolidation did not allow the prayer made by the petitioner in his application by referring to the judgment rendered by coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 307 (M/S) of 2010. Thus feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court.

(3) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that trees were planted by the petitioner in the year 1999, therefore the trees are his property and the Deputy Director, Consolidation was not right in disallowing the prayer made by the petitioner for cutting those trees. (4) Learned State Counsel has drawn attention of this Court to the averment made in para 22 of the counter affidavit, filed by Mr. Dhiraj Singh 2025:UHC:6026

Garbyal, District Magistrate, Haridwar, which is extracted below:

"22. That the petitioner had earlier cut the trees standing on his own land now petitioner wants permission to cut the trees which are standing on the land of Gaon Sabha and State, the petitioner has no relation with these trees which are standing over the land of Gaon Sabha and State and the permission cannot be granted to him for the same."

(5) Learned State Counsel thus submits that since the trees are standing on the land belonging to Gram Sabha, therefore, Deputy Director, Consolidation was justified in not allowing the prayer made by the petitioner.

(6) This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel. Trees standing over the land belonging to petitioner only can be claimed by the petitioner. Since the trees are standing on the land belonging to Gram Sabha, therefore, permission for cutting those trees cannot be granted. Thus there is no scope for interference. Writ petition fails and is dismissed.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

11.7.2025 Pr

PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C 91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2025.07.11 18:50:41 +05'30' 2025:UHC:6026