STATE Vs. KHUMAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application by the State against an order, dated 10-11-1953 given by the learned Additional Commissioner, Udaipur, in a proceeding on an application by Thakur Delmora u/art. 12, Group D, Schdl. I of the Revenue Courts (Procedure & Jurisdiction) Act, for the issue of a license to remove trees for purposes other than domestic or agricultural.

(2.) WE have heard the learned Government Advocate ex-part, the opposite party being absent despite notice. The facts of the case appear to be that Thikana Delmora applied to the Collector. Udaipur for permission to cut down the trees standing on the waste land which the Thikana wanted to reclaim for purposes of cultivation etc. The S. D. O. to whom his appli-cation was forwarded passed it on to Tehsildar who reported that the land in question was not required for bonafide agricultural purposes, but the applicant wanted to sell these trees to a Bohra for making Char-coal out of the same. Upon this the S. D. O. rejected the application on 8-1-1953. In appeal before the Collector the same order was confirmed. In second appeal learned Additional Commissioner observed that both the subordinate courts had given no opportunity,whatsoever,to the appellant to substantiate the facts given in his application and the order given behind his back without being heard was bad in law. He therefore, remanded the case to the S. D. O. for hearing the applicant and disposal according to law. The Tehsildar and the S. D. O. felt that this order of the Additional Commissioner was void for want of juris diction as an application for the grant of a license to cut down trees even if it was provided in Schedule 1, Group D, Article 12 was to be disposed of in accordance with sec. 5 (2) of the Rajasthan Removal of trees (Regulation; Ordinance, 1949, and orders given under this Ordinance were not appealable, only a revision could lie to the Revenue Board. WE find that there is no substance in this contention. Sec. 3 of Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951, reads as below: - Saving - Except as otherwise specially provided herein, nothing in this Act shall in any why affect the provisions of the Rajasthan Removal of Trees (Regulation)Ordinance, 1949, (No. VIII of 1949 ). Reading between the lines this section clearly means that if no special provision exists in the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction)Act for disposal of applications under the Rajasthan Removal of Trees (Regulation)Ordinance the provisions of that Ordinance will not be affected. In this particular case we see that a clear procedure for the disposal of applications for the grant of a license to remove trees for purposes other than domestic or agricultural has been prescribed in Group D, Art. 12 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act.