MOTILAL Vs. DIRECTOR,NATIONAL PARK, PANNA AND STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is made to a judgment -dated 4.3.1998 passed by District Judge, Panna in Civil Suit No. 14 -A/1995, whereby a suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for declaration has been rejected.

(2.) IN the suit in question, appellants/plaintiffs sought a declaration to the effect that an order -dated 21.6.1994 passed by the District Collector, Panna in Revenue Case No.40A -63/92 -93 under section 241 of the MP Land Revenue Code, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as 'Code') be declared as valid and based on the aforesaid order appropriate compensation be paid to the appellants for the trees which have been cut down from the area in question. According to the appellants, land bearing Khasra No.5/2, Bandobast No.52, Patwari Halka No.15 total area 4.92 Hectares, situated in village Kota, Tehsil and District Panna originally belonged to their mother, one Smt. Ghansi Bai, wife of Balloo Yadav. It is stated that the aforesaid land was recorded in the revenue records in the name of their mother. In the aforesaid land Motilal and others Vs. Director, National Park, Panna and State of MP. 388 Saugon Trees were available. Sometime in the year 1992, Late Smt. Ghansi Bai filed an application under section 121 of the Code seeking permission for cutting and disposal of certain trees situated on the land. The case was registered as Revenue Case No.40 -A/63/92 -93; Collector, Panna is said to have investigated into the matter and finally passed an order on 21.6.1994 ­ Annexure P/1, permitting appellants' mother to cut only 130 trees out of the 388 available on the land. It is said that based on the aforesaid order passed by the Collector upto 15.8.1994, appellants' mother with the help of officials of the Forest Department had cut 130 Saugon Trees and thereafter she moved an application to the Forest Department for giving her payment for the aforesaid trees. However, in November 1994, she died and as till date nothing was done, appellants, who are her Legal Representatives, filed the suit in question, the suit having been dismissed this appeal is filed and the claim made now is that the order passed by the Collector be given effect to and based on the same, the amount payable to the appellants be paid.

(3.) SMT . Nirmala Naik, learned Government Advocate, refuted the aforesaid and submitted that the land belongs to the Forest Department. A Notification has been issued in the Gazette dated 1.9.1969, declaring the entire land situated in Village Kota to be Forest Land, under the territorial jurisdiction of the National Forest Area, Panna and as the land is found to be forest land, no permission could be granted by the Collector for cutting of the trees. Referring to the documents available on record and the findings recorded by the trial court, from paragraph 14 onwards, learned counsel tried to emphasize that in dismissing the suit, the trial court has not committed any error warranting interference.