JAYKRUSHNA PATNAIK Vs. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.6.2004 of Divisional Forest Officer, Ghumsur North Division, Bhanjanagar (opposite party No. 1) rejecting his application for issue of Timber Transit permit for removal of trees (forest produce) standing on his private recorded land in Mouza Mujagada under Ghumsur Tahsil in the District of Ganjam.

(2.) THE petitioner along with others is the owner of a piece of land in Mouza Mujagada under M.S. Holding No. 210, Plot No. 1958 and the petitioner had applied on 5.3.2001 to opposite party No. 1 for issuance of T.T. permit for removal of trees standing over the said plot of land. As per the letter of opposite party No. 1 bearing No. 454 dated 4.2.2004 the petitioner submitted the required documents i.e., ROR and rent receipts etc. The opposite party No. 1 thereafter issued intimation to the Tahasildar, Ghumsur, Bhanjanagar (opposite party No. 2) for a joint verification and joint verification was conducted in presence of Revenue and Forest officials and it was found that 111 numbers of trees of Sal and Teak variety were standing over the said plot. After report of joint verification (Annexure -3} was received by opposite party No. 1 he took up the matter and after considering all the materials observed that the petitioner had acquired the land on 24.1.1985 i.e., after 25.10.1980 when Forest Conservation Act, 1980 came into force. He further observed that the Hon'ble High Court by order dated 18.12.2000 in OJC No. 7498 of 2000 had put an embargo on issue of TT permit in respect of trees standing on Patta land in the State where Patta (lease) granted and title acquired was after 25.10.1980. Opposite party No. 1 referred to the judgment of this Court dated 10.7.2002 in OJC No. 4819 of 2001 and held that TT permit could not be issued for the trees of the recorded plot No. 1958 under holding No. 210 of Mujagada belonging to the applicant (Annexure -4) and rejected his application.

(3.) OPPOSITE party No. 1 in the counter affidavit has asserted, inter alia, that the land of the petitioner has been acquired on 24.1.1985 as the settlement authorities have issued the ROR on that date and in view of the verdict of this Court the rejection of the petition for issue of TT permit cannot be called in question as no document was produced by the petitioner before the opposite party No. 1 to show that the land was purchased by his ancestors long back and the land being acquired in 1985 i.e., long after cut off date 25.10.1980 the petitioner has rightly been denied TT permit.