AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The grievance of the writ petitioner is that inspite of the pendency of a civil suit between the petitioner and the respondent No. 6 who is the defendant, there has been illegal and wanton fell of trees within the suit land, that too inspite of injunction orders operating.
Learned counsel submits that though, the main issue being contested is a Title Suit being T.S. No. 23 of 2005 which is stated to be pending, the manner in which the trees has been cut down by unknown person's within the suit land is alarming and called for appropriate orders from this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Mr. H. Kharmih, learned GA for the respondent No. 1 and 2 has filed an additional affidavit indicating the status of investigation, inasmuch as an FIR was lodged by the petitioner with regard to the felling of trees. On perusal of the report, indicates that the case has a chequered history inasmuch as, there has been FIR's and counter FIR's filed by the parties in this regard, and it is on record that the petitioner himself had to seek anticipatory bail. The police report also states that the dispute is clearly of civil nature.
Mr. V.G.K. Kynta, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Ms. V. Mawlieh, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent No. 3 submits that the writ petitioner has alternative statutory remedy, inasmuch as, it involves felling of trees which are covered in the relevant acts of the District Council and as such could seek remedy there from.
I have heard learned counsels for the parties considered their submissions and examined the materials placed on record.
It is seen, that this is the second round of litigation before this Court seeking this similar protection.
Be that as it may, notwithstanding the pendency of the civil suit between the parties concerned, the fact that the trees have been felled without due process or authorization as provided under the United Khasi Jaintia Hills Autonomous District (Management & Control of Forests Act, 1958) cannot be permitted in any manner. Accordingly, the respondent No. 3 to 5 are directed to take action against whoever has felled the said timber and to seize the same, if the same has been felled without due permission. It is made clear that the observation made herein by this Court will have no bearing in the pending Title Suit, where the petitioner is at liberty to seek appropriate orders with regard to the matter in dispute. 8. With the above noted directions, the writ petition is accordingly disposed of.