CHHAMADHAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 25-10-1996 (Annexure P-1) of the respondent No. 2 by which he has directed the respondent No. 3 to seize the timber trees on the land belonging to the petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner is Bhumiswami of Khasra No. 20 area 7.16 acres in village Kohaniya, Tehsil Begamganj, District Raisen. He made an application under Section 241 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Code) to respondent No. 2 Collector, Raisen for permission to cut 492 timber trees standing on this land. This application was submitted by him in the prescribed form A on 24-10-1995. The Collector called the report of the respondent No. 3 Divisional Forest Officer and the S.D.O. (Civil). They submitted their reports on 13-4-1996. But no order was passed by the Collector. The petitioner informed the Collector by the letter dated 8-7-1996 that he has started cutting trees from that date. He gave the same information to the D.F.O. on 13-9-1996. The petitioner logged these trees at stump site. On 17-10-1996 he requested the D.F.O. in writing as required by the rules to get these logs hammer-marked and issue the transit pass for transportation of these logs. That has not been done. The Collector wrote to the D.F.O. on 25-10-1996 to seize these logs. The seizure has been done on 30-10-1996 and the logs are on supratnama of the petitioner.

(3.) The petitioner's case is that the Collector is required by Rule 3(2) to communicate his decision to the applicant within three months of the date of his application. That was not done by him. On 31-3-1996 the petitioner through his counsel submitted an application before the Collector as required by Rule 4 calling his attention to this matter but he did not give any reply within a period of three months, therefore, it would be deemed that the permission for cutting the trees has been granted. In view of this deemed permission the petitioner started felling the trees from 8-7-1996 and he informed the Collector again on that date that he has started doing so. The petitioner has sought the relief that the seizure of the logs be quashed and the respondents be directed to get the logs hammer-marked and to issue the transit pass.