SALLU LAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:

(2.) The relevant facts for adjudication of this matter are that the petitioners are claiming themselves to be owner/bhumiswami of land khasra No.93, Rakba 0.38 hectare. The claim is based on the 'Rin Pustika' and revenue entries Annexure P/3 and P/4.

(3.) The petitioners preferred an application seeking permission to cut certain number of trees situated in their land. The Sub Divisional Officer(Forest) vide communication dated 21.07.2011 Annexure P/6 placed reliance and agreed with the report of Range Officer, Kevlari and opined that 27 Sagon trees (Teak Trees) can be permitted to be cut. Shri Ruprah submits that in turn, the trees were cut and deposited in the depot of Forest Department. However, Tehsildar, Kevlari by order dated 08.02.2012 disagreed with the permission to cut the treest on the ground that the land in question is adjacent to Aharwada-Patan Forest road and; therefore, permission cannot be granted. The said order of Tehsildar could not sustain judicial scrutiny. In Revenue Case No.1A-62/2013-14, dated 21.08.2014 Annexure P/7 accorded permission to cut 27 teak trees with the condition that cut trees shall be sold to forest department. Shri Ruprah submits that order dated 18.09.2014 is bad in law whereby despite previous adjudication the hindrance is created that the land in question is a forest land or not needs to be examined. The impugned order dated 01.04.2015 Annexure P/2 is bad in law in as much as it was held that land khasra No.93 is a forest land. Shri Ruprah submits that there is no basis to hold that the land in question is a forest land.