DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER Vs. BHIM DUTT PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ petitioner (respondent in the present appeal) filed Writ Petition No.1294 of 2014(M/S) for following reliefs:

(2.) Facts of the case, in brief, are that in the year 2003 the petitioner moved an application under Section 5 of Uttar Pradesh Protection of Trees in Rural and Hill Areas Act, 1976 before Divisional Forest Officer, Champawat for cutting and removing five fallen trees. The said application remained pending in the office of Divisional Forest Officer, Champawat for a long period. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.1831 of 2011 (M/S) before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of on 01.09.2011 directing the appellant no.1 to consider and decide the application of the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order. The certified copy of the order along with the application was received by the office of appellant no.1 on 01.09.2011. Range Officer, Sukhi Dhang, Champawat and Sub Divisional Officer, Champawat were asked to submit report after making spot inspection. On 21.02.2012 Sub Divisional Forest Officer, Champawat submitted a report that writ petitioner himself had digged the roots of three trees as a result of which trees fell down. It appears that appellant no.1 did not grant permission to the writ petitioner and proceeded in the matter under Section 10 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the writ petitioner challenged the order dated 25.05.2012 by filing a Writ Petition No.1697 of 2012 (M/S). Same was dismissed. After dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.15,000/ - on 02.03.2012 as penalty/ fine in a case registered against him. After making payment of fine the petitioner moved an application before the appellant no.1 seeking permission to remove the trees. The Forest Range Officer recommended the matter. On 15.05.2013 appellant no.1 passed order declining permission to the petitioner to remove the trees. Permission was declined on the ground that petitioner failed to prove the ownership over the trees and the land. Thereafter the petitioner filed another Writ Petition No.1644 of 2013(M/S) before this Court seeking permission for removing five fallen trees from his land. The said writ petition was disposed of giving liberty to the writ petitioner to avail statutory remedy available to him by approaching the Revising Authority under section 6(4) of the Uttar Pradesh Protection of Trees in Rural and Hill Areas Act, 1976. The petitioner thereafter filed representation/revision before the Conservator of Forest, Almora/appellant no.2. On 24.02.2014, respondent no.2 passed an order on the said revision directing appellant no.1/Divisional Forest Officer, Champawat to grant permission to the writ petitioner to remove/transport the fallen trees from his land. But, inspite of the order passed by appellant no.2, the Divisional Forest Officer, Champawat (appellant no.1) did not give permission to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition No.1294 of 2014 (M/S) before this Court. Learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 08.12.2014 and directed the appellant no.1 to issue necessary permission to the petitioner to transport/remove five fallen trees mentioned in the application within 15 days from that day. Aggrieved by the said decision, present special appeal has been preferred.

(3.) Case of the appellant before us is that the petitioner failed to prove the title of the land on which trees were found and the learned Single Judge erred in issuing direction to the appellant no.1 to grant permission to the petitioner to transport/remove fallen trees. It is the case of the appellants that the title of ownership of land is not clear as is found from the report of Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tanakpur vide letter dated 13.02.2015. It is also the case of the appellants that petitioner himself cut the roots of the trees as a result of which trees fell down and penalty was imposed upon the writ petitioner. He deposited the penalty in the proceedings awarded against him for violation of Forest Conservator Act. Thus, guilt of the petitioner was proved and in such circumstances, permission could not be granted and the rejection of permission by appellant no.1 is justified.