SUNUPDAS Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the instant writ petition has sought for the relief to set aside the order dtd. 20/7/2016 (Annexure-P-4) and order dtd. 7/6/2018 (Annexure-P-5) passed by the Collector Balaghat and Commissioner, Jabalpur, respectively.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner is a Bhumiswami of land Khasara No.25/1, area 5.40 acre, situated at Gram Aamgahan, PHN No.56, RNM Gadhi, Tehsil Baihar District Balaghat. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner belongs to aboriginal Tribes as defined under Sec. 2 (a) of the Madhya Pradesh Admin Jan Jatiyon Ka Sanrakshan (Vrakshon Me Hit) Adhiniyam, 1999 (hereinafter, referred to "the Act of 1999"). The petitioner cut 84 trees from his own land without any permission from any authority. On 10/3/2014, the Sub Divisional Officer has found that there was violation of Sec. 241 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (In short "MPLRC") and, therefore, in exercise of powers under Sec. 253 of the MPLRC, he imposed penalty of Rs.20,000.00 against the petitioner. The Sub Divisional Officer has further directed that once the fine amount is deposited, the Forest Department would auction the entire wood of 84 trees and the amount received in such an auction would be returned to the Bhumiswami. Since the said exercise was not conducted despite the penalty amount deposited by the petitioner, he had approached in writ petition No.22347 of 2015, which was disposed of vide order dtd. 31/1/2016 directing the competent authority to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. In pursuance to the aforesaid order passed by this Court, the Collector on 20/7/2016, has directed that the entire wood of 84 trees stands confiscated as the trees were cut without permission from the competent authority. The petitioner approached the Divisional Commissioner against the order passed by the Collector, who has also affirmed the order passed by the Collector hence, the petitioner is in the instant writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the entire action of the respondents authorities is against the provisions of law. He submits that with an object to protect his rights and the trees standing on their holdings and to save them from exploitation, the State legislature has framed the Act of 1999. He submits that no order of confiscation can be passed by the Collector under sub Sec. 2 of Sec. 9 of Act of 1999 unless the action under sub-Sec. 1 of Sec. 9 is taken. According to him, even if the provisions of MPLRC are made applicable, in that case also, the Collector has no authority to confiscate the wood in view of sub-Sec. 4 of Sec. 241 of the MPLRC as the power of confiscation lies with the Sub Divisional Officer. He further submits that even the powers under Sec. 253 of the MPLRC could only be invoked when trees in question are on the Government land. Since in the instant case, it is not in dispute that the trees were standing on the land belonging to the petitioner , there was no justification in invoking the powers under the provisions of MPLRC.