SHANKAR ANANDWAGHMARE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order passed by the additional Commissioner, Amravati, Division amravati, dt. 24-9-1997. The facts that are material and relevant for deciding this petition are thus : that the petitioner applied to the Tree officer for permission to fell trees in the land survey No. 123/1 of village Loni. The trees were Sagwan trees. Permission was granted by the Tree Officer. It appears that the original owner of the land was respondent No. 2 trust. The petitioner was tenant of the land. In accordance with the provisions of the Bombay tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidharbha Region) Act, ownership of the land was transferred to the tenant petitioner. Against the order granting permission to the petitioner to cut the trees, an appeal was filed by the respondent No. 2 before the Collector. The Collector entertained the appeal. However, he found that the order is valid and he dismissed the appeal. Against the order, a revision was preferred presumably under the provisions of the Land Revenue Code challenging the order of Tree Officer and the order of the collector. That revision was decided by an order dt. 24-9-1997 by the Additional commissioner. The Additional Commissioner held that the real question to be decided by the tree Officer was whether the petitioner or the respondent is owner of the trees and therefore, as that question, according to the Revisional authority, was not decided before granting permission, the order granting permission has been set aside and the matter has been remitted back to the Tree Officer for fresh inquiry and for making fresh order. It is this order which is challenged in this petition.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the Additional Commissioner is an order passed without jurisdiction. The learned counsel submits that the application was made by the petitioner under the provisions of the Maharashtra Felling of Trees Regulation Act, 1964. The Tree Officer before whom the application was made granted permission. It is subsection (2) of section 3 of the felling of Trees Act which makes a provision of appeal and sub-section (2) of section 3 provides an appeal only against an order refusing to grant permission. In other words, there is no appeal contemplated by the Act against the order granting permission to cut the trees. In the present case, therefore, no appeal could have been filed by the respondent against the order of the tree Officer. Therefore, neither the appeal nor the revision was competent.

(3.) I have heard the learned Counsel for both the sides. Perused the record. It is clear from the provisions of subsection of section 3 that the appeal is competent only against the order refusing to grant permission made by the Tree Officer. In the present case, as the permission was granted by Tree Officer, the appeal obviously was not tenable. Therefore, revision will not lie in any case. I find that the question as to ownership of the land of the trees cannot be gone into by the Tree officer. The Tree Officer, while considering the application for felling of trees, is not concerned with the ownership of the land or of the trees. He has to consider the application in accordance with the provisions of the Act and find out whether environmentally it will be advisable to grant permission or not. If the respondent No. 2 has any grievance, the remedy lies elsewhere. As I find that the order impugned in the petition is patently without jurisdiction, the order is liable to be set aside. In the result, the petition succeeds and allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (a). Rule made absolute.