DALIP SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DHARAM Veer, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for writ of mandamus com manding the Respondent No. 3 to issue him transit pass (Ravanna) for transpor tation of wood logs from Suakot Pokhari to Haldwani Town.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case as nar rated by the petitioner are that petitioner is permanent resident of Village Suwakot Pokhari, Patti Padampur, Tehsil Dhari and Bhumidhar Tenure Holder of Khet No. 869, 871, 902, 903, 1000, 1001, 1002, 1003/2 and 30 situ ated in the revenue area of the said vil lage and some trees of different varie ties were also situated in the bhumidhari land of the petitioner. The petitioner moved an application before the District Magistrate, Nainital with a prayer to is sue ownership certificate about the said trees. The District Magistrate, Nainital after making necessary enquiry issued ownership certificate of the trees in fa vour of the petitioner. Thereafter, the pe titioner moved an application before Respondent No. 3 to cut the trees which were dry and effected by the diseases. The Respondent No. 3 thereafter called a report from the Van Kshetridhikari' 'dana'. After receiving the said report of Van Kshetridhikari Danda, the Respond ent No. 3 granted permission to cut the eleven trees of 'sal', two trees of 'sain' and one tree of Tun'. The permission to mark the trees and cutting the trees was given vide letter dated 02-06-2000 by Respondent No. 3 and period of com pletion of cutting the trees was upto 30-07-2000 and a copy of this permission letter was also forwarded to District Magistrate, S. S. P. Nainital and Incharge of Sharda Range. It has been stated in the writ petition that the petitioner cut the trees permission of which was given by the Forest Officials and their logs were also collected in the presence of the De partmental Officers. The Respondent No. 3 granted transit pass to transport the cutted logs to nearest town Haldwani and the transit permission was valid from 8- 6-2001 to 13-06-2001. It has been alleged in the writ petition that the petitioner got some logs transported to Haldwani but some logs remained at the spot untransported due to starting of rainy season and transit pass was not extended and wood logs are still lying at the spot. Thereafter, on 12-5- 2004 the petitioner moved an application with the prayer to issue transit pass before the Re spondent No. 3. The Respondent No. 3 thereafter called a report from the sub ordinate forest officials about the mat ter. Thereafter, again on 5-1-2005, the petitioner again moved an application for insurance of transit pass for the trans portation of logs. The Respondent No. 3 again called a report from Sub- Divi sional Forest Officer, Haldwani vide let ter dated 07-02-2005. In compliance of the report required by Respondent No. 3, the Van Kshetradhikari gave his report about the position of the wood logs ly ing at the spot. On the basis of the above report given by Van Kshetradhikari, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the prayer to com mand the respondent No. 3 to issue him transit pass Ravanna for transportation of wood logs from Suakot Pokhari to Haldwani town.

(3.) THEREAFTER, the Forest Ranger sub mitted his second report dated 21-6-2005 wherein he stated that the said Timber re garding which he has given his earlier report is lying at various places near motor road in reserve forest area far away from the Village Suwakot Pokhari. It has fur ther been stated in the report that there is no hammer mark of the petitioner in the Timber. (Hammer mark is a mark impressed in the log/timber by the person to whom sanction is granted and for that purpose he is also given hammer mark by the Forest Department ). The Forest Ranger also clarified that the petitioner has not even sought any permission to transport and collect the Timber from his settled land to the reserve forest area. Thus, since the log/timber is lying in the forest area and there is no hammer mark of the pe titioner in it, as such it cannot be said that the Timber for which the petitioner is seek ing transit pass belongs to him. After re ceiving the aforesaid report, the Dy. Divi sional Forest Officer, Sharda Forest Divi sion, Haldwani declined to give recom mendation for issuing transit pass to the petitioner.