SRI UDIT PRASAD SINGH Vs. SUKRU KISAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revisions arise out of two appellate orders by S.L. Marwood, Esq. C.I.E., I.C.S., Revenue Commissioner, Orissa, dated 30-7-1943, in Revenue Appeals Nos. 63 and 64 of 1942-43, confirming the order of the Deputy Commissioner of Sambalpur, dated 80-1-1943, directing Sri Udit Pratap Singh, petitioner in C.R. No. 168 of 1943 to pay a penalty of Rs. 2000 for having cut and removed timber from 19 plots of Grammiya jungle and Tikrachatan in disregard of the forest rules framed and promulgated under Section 162, Central Provinces Land Revenue Act, and directing Sri B.N. Kar, a contractor, petitioner in C.R. No. 169 of 1943, to pay a fine of Rs. 950 for having taken part in cutting and removing timber from the said jungles in disregard of the rules.

(2.) The facts leading to these petitions are that on the application of Sukru Kisan, the minor thikadar of village Tampersingha alleging that Sri Udit Pratap Singh, malguzar had cut a large quantity of timber from Grammiya jungle for sale, a Revenue Miscellaneous case No. 5/4, 305 of 1941-42 was started, and the petition was forwarded to the Additional Tahsildar for enquiry and report. The latter in his report dated 20-6-1942, stated that the malguzar and his contractor Sri B.N. Kar had cut about 6000 sal, bija and other trees from Grammiya jungle plot Nos. 1-15, 129 and 119/1197 with a total area of 663.32 acres, from Tikrachatan plot Nos. 1118 and 1119 with an area of 82.63 acres and also from Gochar plot NOS. 20, 22 and 1218 with an area of 37.94 acres. He further reported that some trees had been cut from Badjungle plot No. 16 with an area of 16.53 acres.

(3.) On receipt of this report, the learned Deputy Commissioner visited the forest on 21-1.1948, and found not only that a large number of trees bad been cut from the different plots mentioned above, but that the cutting had been indiscriminate and unscientific in that they had been cut over one foot, many others 2 or 3 feet above the ground, while the rule was that they should be flushed with the ground. On inspection the learned Deputy Commissioner formed an opinion that as a result of this exploitation the forest growth was bound to suffer. During his enquiry he (the Deputy Commissioner) discovered that a jamun tree--a tree of prohibited species--had been cut without special permission.