RAMESHWAR SHANKARLALJI MANTRI Vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present petition the petitioner has challenged the orders made by the Sub Divisional Officer, Mehkar who ordered seizure and auction of 40 babool wooden logs belonging to the petitioner and confirmed by the Additional Collector, Buldana as well as the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati in appeals.

(2.) The petitioner is owner of agricultural land bearing Gat No. 158 area 4.00 H.R. at mouza Sultanpur, tahsil Lonar, district Buldana. The petitioner engaged contractor Madangawali for felling 40 babool trees standing in his field and for sale thereof at Rs. 34,000/-. All the 40 trees were felled but the Tahsildar, Lonar seized those felled trees and reported to the S. D. O. who held under his order dated 07/9/1993 that the trees were felled by the petitioner without permission and hence were seized and put to auction which fetched price of Rs. 40,000/- which were deposited in the Government treasury and in addition, fine of Rs. 500/- was imposed. The petitioner preferred first appeal before the Additional Collector where he did not succeed and, therefore, preferred second appeal before the Additional Commissioner, but without any success. The case of the petitioner was that the trees were causing obstruction for cultivation of his agricultural land and the portion under the trees was unutilized and thus become fallow. In order to remove the obstruction and bring the said portion under cultivation, he engaged the contractor for felling the trees. None of the revenue authorities accepted his case but they held that the petitioner had illegally cut 40 babool trees and the same was in violation of Section 25 (2) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (for short; the Code). Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) Mr. Pathan, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that 40 babool trees which were spread over in the field of the petitioner had made enough area uncultivable and as such because of those grown trees, crop in the said area was affected. Thus, the said trees caused obstruction in the smooth cultivation of his field and, therefore, in order to bring the said uncultivable land into cultivation, it was necessary for him to cut those trees and bring the land thereunder under cultivation. He then submitted that no permission for cutting babool trees is required as the babool trees are not scheduled trees within the meaning of definition of "tree" under Section 2 (f) of the Maharashtra Felling of Trees (Regulation) Act, 1964 and, therefore, restriction of felling of the trees provided by Section 3 of the said Act is not attracted in case of non scheduled tree like babool tree. He then submitted that the impugned orders are therefore clearly illegal and liable to be quashed and set aside.