AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Some of the Villagers residents of Villages Modi Khurd, Paldi, Bajwas falling within the limits of Gram Panchayat, Taparrwada Tehsil Parbatsar, District Nagaur had preferred the Divisional Bench Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 9556 of 2011 before the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur inter-alia praying for directions to the respondent No.1 State of Rajasthan through Chief Administrative Secretary Rural Development and Panchayat Raj Department, Jaipur, Respondent No.2 Chief Administrative Secretary, Department of Forest, Respondent No.3 Chief Administrative Secretary, Department of Revenue, Jaipur, Respondent No.4 Chief Administrative Secretary of Environment, Jaipur, Respondent No.5 Principal Chief Conservator of Forest Aravali Bhawan, Jaipur, Respondent No.6 The District Collector, Nagaur, Respondent No. 7 The District Forest Officer, Nagaur, Respondent No. 8 The Deputy Forest Officer Conservator, Nagaur, District Nagaur, Respondent No.9 The Tehsildar, Tehsil Parbatsar District Nagaur, Respondent No.10 The Patwari, Gram Panchayat Taparwada, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Nagaur, Respondent No. 11 Mr. Jugal Kishore, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat Taparwada, Panchayat Samiti Parbatsar, District Nagaur and Respondent No. 12 The Secretary, Gram Panchayat Taparwada, Panchayat Samiti Parbatrsar, District Nagaur to initiate process of reforestation in Gochar Land situated in Village Taparwada Tehsil Parbatsar District Nagaur and for such other appropriate directions against the officials/persons concerned for allowing illegal deforestation. Notices were issued to show cause as to why the petition be not allowed. Notices were duly served. In due course, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 11 filed their replies. On 17.01.2014 the Divisional Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan transferred the said petition to us for further proceedings.
The petition was newly registered and numbered as original application no. 39 of 2014 and placed before us on 5th March, 2014 when Learned Counsel appearing for the State was directed to inform all other learned Counsel appearing in the case about the listing of the case on 7th March, 2014. On 7th March, 2014, we again deferred the matter for further orders for 2nd May, 2014. On 2nd May, 2014, learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant and the State remained present and learned Counsel appearing for the Applicant submitted that he will inform all other learned Counsel for the respondents of the next date of hearing. On 22nd January, 2015, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant was heard and we wanted the presence of Respondent Nos. 11 and 12 before us. We had therefore issued Bailable Warrants against them. On this date also learned Counsel appearing for the applicant was permitted to inform all other respondents once more. Though, the Bailable Warrants were issued the SHO had not placed any report of execution of Bailable Warrants before us neither he is present today to apprise us of the execution of the Bailable Warrants. Today, we are informed by the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant that he did inform the other Counsel for the respondents of the pendency of this proceeding from time to time. On the statement made by the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant and in view of the publication of our orders notings on website from time to time we are led to believe that the respondents are well aware of the pendency of this petition and yet the respondent nos. 11 and 12 are avoiding their presence before us for protracting this application further. We see no reason for protracting the same any further as the facts before us as revealed through the pleadings of the parties are explicit and need no further elaboration.
It is the case of the applicant that Forest Department of the Government of Rajasthan in order to promote greenery and to prevent desertification of the land entered into an agreement with Gram Panchayat Taparwada and utilised 180 bighas of Gair Mumkin Gochar Land falling within the limits of Gram Panchayat Taparwada for plantation of around 16000 trees some time in the year 1982. Thousands of trees as a result of this effort grew on the said land. This growth of forest was to be handed over to the local authorities the Gram Panchayat Taparwada under an agreement dated 25.06.1982.
A copy of the agreement dated 25th June, 1982 between the Gram Panchayat, Taparwada and the Divisional Forest Officer Parbatsar on behalf of the Government of Rajasthan is before us at Annexure - A-2 to the reply of the Respondent Nos. 2, 5, 7 and 8. This is not disputed by anyone of the respondents. It was agreed that the trees would be cut by the Conservator of Forest, Parbatsar, the party of the other part, and preference will be given to the villagers for purchasing the cut trees and remainders would be sold by public auction in consultation with the Conservator of Forest, and sale proceeds were to be shared equally by the Gram Panchayat and the Conservator of Forest, and the Gram Panchayat was to remain under obligation to use its part of the sale proceeds for the benefit of the development of the village.
On this backdrop, the applicant contended that around 3000 trees weighing 7 to 750 quintals under the pretext of same being dead and dry were unlawfully cut and sold in public auction to one Mr. Shiv Raj Chotu Ram of Village Bajwas for an amount of Rs. 1,46,000/- without consulting the conservator of Forest. Strangely, the Applicant further revealed the Sarpanch and the Secretary had got the amount of sale proceeds totally amounting to Rs. 1,46,000/- deposited with Gram Panchayat vide receipt dated 17th March, 2011 before the auction proceedings were concluded. The Applicant further submits that the Village Gram Panchayat had no authority to cut and auction the trees in violation of the terms and conditions of the agreement referred to hereinabove. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the applicant Mr. Shiv Raj Meghwal is a Forest Mafia who has record of criminal cases under Forest Act as per letter dated 21st July, 2011 Anexure-9. He also submits that the action of the Gram Panchayat was disapproved by the Local Panchayat Samiti Parbatsar upon the comment from the Accounts Department Panchayat Samiti vide resolution no. 1 in the meeting dated 30th June, 2011 as per copy of the minutes of the meeting dated 30th June, 2011 at Annexure - P-13 to the rejoinder filed by the applicant to the reply filed by the Respondents.
Perusal of the photographs- Annexure-3, letter dated 18th March, 2011 of Gram Panchayat Parbatsar recording the public auction in favour of Mr. Shivraj- Annexure-4, copy of the receipt dated 17th March, 2011 of Rs. 1,46,000/- issued by Gram Panchayat Taparwada from Shivraj at Annexure-5, photogrpahs at Annexure-6 and other documents referred to hereinabove are sufficient to come to the conclusion that the land in question was shaved off its tree cover clearly and in contravention of the agreement between the Gram Panchayat Taparwada and the Divisional Forest Officer Parbatsar. The defence of the respondent no. 11 peeping through his reply that he has obtained permission of the Tehsildar for cutting of the said trees vide permission endorsed below the application made to the Tehsildar dated 10th March, 2011 Annexure-R/11 to the reply of the respondent no. 11 is of no consequence in view of the fact that the Tehsildar had no role to play in cutting of the said trees and had merely made an endorsement below the application-"the natural vegetable growth on Gochar Land belongs to Gram Panchayat and if the trees have dried its public auction should be done at the Gram Panchayat level upon appropriate enquiry and for that his permission is not required". Significantly, the fact of the said agreement dated 25-06-1982 was suppressed by the respondent nos. 11 & 12 from the Tehsildar.
Thus, the Tehsildar distanced himself from the business of granting permission. Perusal of the replies reveals that there is nothing in any of the replies to suggest that there was prior consultation regarding cutting of these trees with Divisional Forest Officer, Parbatsar and trees were cut as stipulated in the said agreement. We, therefore, have no hesitation in holding that there was unlawful cutting of the trees by the Respondent Nos. 11 and 12 leading to consequent public auction as aforesaid.
Most of the lands in State of Rajasthan fall in arid region. Even the resolution dated 25.06.1982 passed by the Gram Panchayat, Taparwada records the fact that there was paucity of green trees. Hardly expert's opinion is needed to understand the value of green trees or growth of forest cover. Besides benefitting the locals in terms of greenery and income earned there from it has far reaching consequences in arresting desertification of the arid region. Intervention in the process of cutting trees in question of the Forest Officials as envisaged in the said agreement was essential as they were the experts in the field to decide issue of cutting trees planted for afforestation of the area and consequential action. Unlawful cutting of the trees, therefore, by no less the persons holding offices of Sarpanch and Secretary of Gram Panchayat exhibits blatant disregard for law and it caused the environment loss of precious forest cover. Loss thus caused to the environment needs to be recompensed with compensation to be paid by the persons responsible for the loss- the Respondent No. 11 & 12.
We, therefore, invoke Polluter Pay Principle enunciated in Section 20 of the NGT Act, 2010 making the respondent No. 11 & 12 liable to pay such compensation. In our considered opinion such compensation not only should cover the cost of reforestation of the said gochar land but also be an exemplary one and therefore, it has to be quantified at 10 times the amount of sale process of Rs. 1,46,000 which roughly works out to Rs. 14, 60, 000 that is roughly Rs. 15 lakh. This amount of Rs. 15 Lakh needs to be recovered from the respondent no. 11 & 12 personally, both jointly or severally, and caused to be utilized towards the reforestation of the said gochar land in village, Taparwada.
We have also noticed the apathy of District Forest Officer in not taking timely action when the trees were being cut. One may get a feeling that the concerned District Forest Officer, Nadwala connived at the unlawful act of cutting of the said trees. We therefore, feel it proper to order enquiries/ proceedings against the concerned Officials at the hands of the competent authorities. Outcome of such enquiries would enable us to pass further directions if necessary in accordance with the law. We therefore, dispose of this petition with the following directions:
The Respondent No. 11 and the concerned Respondent No. 12 personally shall, jointly or severally pay an amount of Rs. 15 lakhs to the District Forest Officer, Nagaur within a month who shall use this amount for re-afforestation in the same Gochar Land situated in village Taparwada in consultation with Gram Panchayat, Taparwada.
Respondent No. 1 - State of Rajasthan, Respondent No. 3 - Chief Administrative Secretary, Department of Revenue and Respondent No. 6 - The District Collector Nagaur shall initiate appropriate proceedings against the Respondent Nos. 11 and 12 for allowing illegal deforestation to the said Gochar Land and take appropriate action in accordance with law.
The Respondent No. 2 - Chief Administrative Secretary, Department of Forest, Jaipur shall cause the enquiry to be made against the concerned District Forest Officer, Nagaur for having connived at the deforestation cutting of the trees at the said Gochar Land and not having intervened in the process of cutting trees in time. Such enquiry shall be completed within three months and the outcome of the enquiry shall be placed before us for further directions in accordance with law.
Respondent No. 1 - State of Rajasthan shall also place before us the compliance report in respect of directions passed by us hereinabove for further directions in accordance with law within three months.
Original Application No. 39 (THC) of 2014 stands disposed of accordingly.