BHURA Vs. MURARDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application against an order of the Assistant Collector. Jaipur, dated 12.2.1954 imposing a fine of Rs. 10/ - upon the applicant under sec. 6 of the Rajasthan (Removal of Trees) Ordinance, 1949.

(2.) I have heard the parties and have gone through the record as well. The applicant admits the cutting of the trees though he alleges a day different from that alleged by the opposite party. His contention, however, is that this removal was for domestic or agricultural purposes. Leaving aside the question as to whether the trees were sold as alleged by the opposite party or were utilized by the applicant for domestic or agricultural purposes it is clear that this revision is bound to fail. Section 4 of the Ordinance authorises a tenant to remove trees of his own accord for his domestic or agricultural use, if he has a right to do so according to the law for the time being in force to which he is subject. This is a very important proviso. If the tenant does not possess the right under the law to which he is subject he cannot remove trees even for domestic or agricultural purposes. Section 45 of the Jaipur Tenancy Act lays down that a pattedar tenant shall have full rights of disposal in trees standing on his holding and a khatedar tenant shall have the right to cut trees on his holding for domestic or agricultural purposes. The applicant who avails himself of the exemption contained in sec. 4 of the Rajasthan (Removal of Trees) Ordinance, is, therefore, bound to prove that he was a khatedar tenant of the land in dispute. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant has frankly conceded that there is no evidence on record to show that he is a khatedar tenant. On the other hand the opposite party has produced before me a parcha chakbandi wherein the opposite -party has been recorded as a panedar of the land in dispute which has been shown in his khudkasht. The applicant has not been shown as a khatedar tenant in his parcha. Thus even assuming for a moment that these trees were utilized for domestic or agricultural purposes, it would not mean an exoneration of the applicant for the simple reason that the applicant having failed to prove himself to be a khatedar tenant of the land in dispute was not covered by sec. 4 (ii) of the Rajasthan (Removal of Trees) Ordinance. He should have complied with the provisions of sec. 4 (iii) of the Ordinance and as he failed to do so he is rightly convicted. There is thus no substance in this revision which is hereby rejected.