Kamal Datta vs State Of Tripura And Ors

Petitioner claims that there are 145 teak trees on a plot of land which belongs to him. He had made an application to the Forest Department to give certificate of registration of such trees so that he can with proper permission cut the trees to meet with his expenditure. Since such application was not decided, the petitioner had previously approached this Court. Learned single Judge of the Court by an order dated 6th July, 2017 required the authorities to decide the entire issue within 6(six) weeks which would include carrying out the verification of the land, ascertaining whether such land or any part thereof is covered by the protected forest and the location of trees.

Pursuant to such directions, first the verification of the precise location of the petitioner's land, as per the guidelines laid down by the Government under circular dated 20th October, 2010 titled as detailed procedure for extraction of trees from non-forest areas, was carried out. Para 1.4 of the guidelines provides that upon receipt of an application from authorized Officer, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) shall pass an order entrusting the work for joint verification and demarcation of land to Revenue Officer(s) as deemed appropriate enclosing a copy to the authorized Officer and the concerned Forest Range Officer. As per para 1.5, the joint verification report duly signed by the staff of the Forest Department and Revenue Department shall be submitted to SDM who shall scrutinize the same and upon satisfying himself about the veracity of the report, shall send the joint verification report to the authorized Officer. Under para 1.6, the Tree Registration Certificate(TRC) shall be issued by the authorized Officer, in prescribed form based on the joint verification reports.

In the re-verification report dated 25th October, 2017 it was observed thus :

"During the demarcation it is seen that there is no exact point beside the R/S plot No.5474 of Mouja Krishnanagar, hence the near Abhoynagar Mouja R/S Plot No.412 is selected as references point(which is indicated on the trace map) and land measuring 1.41 acres class of land Till in R/S Plot No.5474 of Mouja and T. K. Krishnanagar has completed demarcation work.

On 19/11/2016 jointly verification R/S Plot No.5474 in Khatian No.867 of Mouja Krishnanagar by the Teshilder of krishnanagar T.K and Range Officer Hrishyamukh according to verification 145 Nos. Teak trees stand marked by the Range officer Hrishyamukh.

As per re-verification it is found that the marked 145 Nos Teak trees are not fallen in the R/S Plot No.5474 of Khatian No.867 of mouja Krishnanagar. These stand marked 145 Nos. Teak trees are fallen in the R/S Plot No.5639 of Khatian No.2 of Mouja Krishnanagar which plot has been recorded in favour of forest Department. The location of the trees have been indicated on the map.

In this regard mentioned here that which part of the R/S Plot No.5639 and marked 145 Nos teak trees are being possessed by Sri Kamal Datta S/o Pramil Ch. Datta of Krishnanagar.

This is for favour of your kind information and doing the needful please."

The grievance of the petitioner is that such report does not reflect the correct position since the measurements of the petitioner's land have been carried out without any reference point which according to the counsel for the petitioner, is bound to lead to inaccurate result. He would point out that in the previous report, the Forest and Revenue authorities had indicated presence of 145 teak trees on the land of the petitioner.

In a writ petition it is not possible to decide such issues since the same would be based on highly disputed questions of facts. As per the latest survey report jointly carried out by the officers of the Forest and Revenue Departments, the teak trees referred to by the petitioner have grown in protected forest area and none of these trees are situated on the petitioner's land. According to the petitioner, the very identification of the petitioner's land is faulty and that therefore, the ultimate conclusions in the joint-report are also faulty. Such issues cannot be decided in a writ petition. If the petitioner is aggrieved by such verification report, he would have to institute proper civil proceedings before the competent Civil Court.

In view of these observations, the petition is disposed of.

Connected application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.