SUO MOTU Vs. PRINCIPAL CHIEF CONSERVATOR FOREST JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to the notice dated 25-8-2004 the reports of Divisional Forest Officers of Jodhpur, Pali, Nagaur and Barmer have been presented in Court today. Let the reports be taken on record.

(2.) The Divisional Forest Officers of Jodhpur, Barmer and Nagaur are present. According to them trees which are cut, removed or felled outside the forest area are beyond the jurisdiction of the Forest Department and they cannot take action in regard thereto. This is a misconception. It appears that definition of the forest produce as occurring in Section 2 (4) of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 has not been taken note of. Section 2 (4) of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 reads as under :

(3.) Thus, it is clear from the definition that timber, charcoal, caoutchoue, catechu, wood-oil, resin, natural varnish, bark, lac, mahua flowers, mahua seeds and myra, myrabolams whether found in the forest or brought from the forest or otherwise falls within the definition of forest produce. Therefore, it is not correct to say that timber or wood which is not brought from the forest is not forest produce. According to Section 2 (8) of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953 "timber" includes trees, when they have fallen or have been felled and all wood, whether cut of fashioned or followed out for any purpose or not. Therefore, the word "timber which is used in Section 2 (4) of the Act when construed in the light of Section 2 (8) thereof would mean any tree or wood whether cut or not and whether brought from the forest or from outside the forest and shall fall within the mischief of Section 2 (4) of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953.