KEDARNATH HUKUMCHAND, DONGARGARH Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R .S. Shukla This order will govern appeals Nos. 15 to 29/VI -B -2 /56 and 9, 10, 12 and 14/VI -B -2/56. In all these appeals the appellant is the same person and the points for consideration are similar.

(2.) AN enquiry by revenue authorities disclosed that the appellant resorted to large scale forest -cutting, partly from Big Tree Forest, and partly from unoccupied areas lying in a number of villages in tahsil Dongargarh, district Drug, which then formed part of the merged territories of the erstwhile Madhya Pradesh. The Additional Deputy Commissioner, Drug, acting under section 218 -A of the Land Revenue Act read with section 233 of the M. P. Land Revenue Code, by his order dated 23 -8 -56 imposed various amounts as fine for different areas totalling a sum of Rs. 3,500. The order of the Additional Deputy Commissioner has now been challenged in a number of appeals which were beard together.

(3.) AFTER careful consideration of the lengthy arguments advanced by the learned counsel from both sides, I am of opinion that there is not much force in the appellant's contention. It is not necessary for me to deal at length with all that was stated before me. Suffice it to say that although it is true that section 218 -A would not apply, the provisions of section 202 are very clear and there is no escape from the fact that the appellant is liable under the latter section. The learned counsel for the appellant seems to have taken a very limited meaning of the words "estate or mahal" in reading the provisions of section 202. A mahal is a unit for the purpose of assessment; it is not necessary that every inch of the land included in a mahal must bear an assessment. The use of the words "estate or mahal" under section 202 ibid seems to be intended only to locate the forest growth and does not necessarily mean that the forest growth must stand on assessed land before its cutting can be regulated by the rules framed under section 202. Forest growths do not bear identifiable names of their own and for the purpose of identification have to be indicated with reference to their existence in a particular mahal or estate. In my opinion interpretation of these words in the sense in which the learned counsel for the appellant attempted to do, would unreasonably restrict the scope of section 202. In fact rule 1 of the rules framed under section 202 confirms my view inasmuch as it clearly states that the said rules would not apply "to forest growths standing on the occupied area or trees planted on the village site". Thus what is exempt from the operation of section 202 is only the forest growth on occupied area and village sites and the rest of the forest growth is subject to the provisions of section 202 ibid.