RAM SWARUP SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he got the Shisham tree from is own raiyati land for which he had taken permission from Mukhiya. The Mukhiya has given permission on the basis of report of Halka Karamchari. He has produced all the documents before the Confiscating Officer, but the same was not considered. Mukhiya had also given transit permit to carry the Shisham log from raiyati land of the petitioner situated in Wazirganj to Saw Mill. Counsel for the Respondents have appeared and submitted that Counter Affidavit has been filed. In para 6 of the Counter Affidavit, it has been mentioned that the Mukhiya/ Halka Karamchari does not have any jurisdiction to enquire and give permission to cut tree in the Wazirganj road, which is notified as forest by the government. It is further submitted that the Halka Karamchari cannot give enquiry report to Mukhiya without knowledge of the Circle Officer. The Petitioner never produced any record showing that the seized wood was transported from rayati land and had legal valid transit permit issued by either Forest Department or Mukhiya of the concerned village. It is further submitted that the Petitioner did not produce any proof before the Authorized Officer cum Divisional Forest Officer or any other respondents. The said transit permit in form-2 being Permit No.29 of Book No.1 dated 10.02.2005 was never produced in Court.

(2.) Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he is ready to produce all those documents before the authorities, who may be directed to pass appropriate order after considering all those documents.

(3.) It goes without saying that Shisham tree was cut by the Petitioner from his own raiyati land and he had sought permission from the Mukhiya for the same. If the Petitioner had cut Shisham tree from his own raiyati land then it cannot be liable to be confiscated only on the ground that same was being carried through the forest area.