Shivaji Patel & Ors. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

This petition has been filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for following reliefs:-

The facts of the case are such that the petitioners are of same family, and they have purchased the agricultural lands of area - 4.06 hectares, 4.35 hectares, 4.75 hectares and 4.05 hectares respectively, situated in Patwari Halka no. 33, village Rabra, Tahsil Udaipura, District Raisen (MP), vide four registered sale deeds executed on 04.09.2010, from Ram Singh and others. These lands and other lands in village Rabra (earlier a forest village) had already been transferred to the Revenue Department, vide Gazette Notification dated 26.04.1962 (Annexure P/2). Since the said land was already under cultivation and was used for agriculture, therefore, the same was transferred to Revenue Department vide Order dated 3/4.12.1975 (Annexpre P/3) passed by Respondent no.1. Subsequently, a revenue notification dated 17.10.1984 was issued by the Govt. of M.P., Revenue Department, under the provision of M.P.L.R. Code,1959 declaring entire Rabra village with 363.92 acres/147.29 hectares of land as revenue village. Accordingly the land in question was formally recorded as revenue land with land revenue payable on it vide Gazette Notification dated 17.10.1984 (Annexure P/4) issued by the Govt. of M.P., Revenue Department. The land situated in Patwari Halka No.33, village Rabra was sold by the owner Ram Singh and others to the petitioners along with 1167 teak wood and satkata trees standing thereupon through separate sale deeds executed on 04.09.2010. As such the petitioners paid the consolidated price of the land along with the trees standing thereupon, to the vendor. After purchase of the aforesaid land, the petitioners made an application to the Tehsildar, Udaipura seeking permission under section 240 of the M.P.L.R.C. for cutting of the teak wood trees standing thereupon. The Tehsildar Udaipura granted the said permission to the petitioner through order 08.06.2011 (Annexure P/5). After obtaining the permission from the Tehsildar, the petitioners made appropriate application to the respondent no.5/Divisional Forest Officer seeking permission for hammering of the teak wood trees standing upon their land. The respondent no. 5 granted permission for hammering to the petitioners after which 384.440 cu. mt. teak wood trees were cut and transported to forest depot, Gairatpur for sale, by them. The petitioners obtained receipts of every trip of teak wood that was transported to the forest depot, Gairatpur. The respondent no. 5 auctioned teak wood. Though the amount received under the auction was deposited by the purchasers, yet when the same was not disbursed to the petitioners for long time, they preferred applications dated 30.04.2013 (Annexure P/9) and 03.07.2013 (Annexure P/10) to the Respondent no.5. Respondent No.2 in consultation with respondent Nos.4 and 5 concluded that no payment can be made for teak wood to the petitioners on their Representation vide communication dated 2.12.2013 (Annexure P/12), and the same was filed. Hence, this petition.

It is submitted by Counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 02.12.2013 of respondent no.4 by which they have refused the payment of teak wood is illegal and arbitrary. The respondent no.4 has acted beyond its authority and jurisdiction in giving a finding that the land purchased by the petitioners was reserve forest land and of which no sale and purchase could have been made. The respondent no. 4 has failed to see that the teak wood in question was cut after obtaining due permission under section 240 of MPLRC, from Tahsildar, which was valid. It is further submitted that in refusing the payment of teak wood to the petitioners the respondent no.4 has completely failed to take into consideration the notification dated 26.04.1962, the order dated 3/4 .12.1975 and the revenue notification dated 17.10.1984 by which the entire land in village Rabra was transferred and declared as revenue land and for which the revenue settlement was made. The respondent no. 4 has acted beyond his authority and jurisdiction in rendering a finding on his own to the effect that the land in question is forest land. The land in question is neither notified as forest land nor does it fall within the definition of forest.

Per contra, Counsel for the respondents has submitted that from Annexure P-2 dated 26th April 1962, it is clear that the aforesaid land has been transferred to Revenue Department only for its management. The forest department has never given the right to the Revenue department for its further sale to some private persons. the aforesaid land in Distt.Raisen has been declared to be a reserved forest vide notification dated 22.1.1916 (Annexure R-1) by the then Revenue Secretary.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners.

The Section 27 of the Indian Forest Act clearly stipulates that for declaration of any forest land not to be a reserved forest land thereof, a notification in official gazettee is required. In the present case it is submitted that at no point of time the aforesaid notification in concurrence with section 27 of Indian Forest Act 1927 has ever been published and since no such notification exists in accordance with the Provision, the aforesaid land vide order dated 26th April 1962 although was transferred for management to the revenue department but the same cannot be termed to be transfer under Forest Act. That if the area in question is a reserved forest then the petitioner by virtue of the sale deeds - Annexure P-1 cannot claim any equitable right. The PCCF has clarified the aforesaid position vide communication dated 23.4.2012 (Annexure R/3) that no such cutting of trees is permissible in view of the Indian Forest Act 1927. Thus, in accordance with section 27 of the Indian Forest Act the notification for unreserving the aforesaid forest land has never been issued. The right of auction is with the forest department, therefore, the amount of auction in lieu of the teak wood cannot be granted in favour of petitioner.

The recital of the sale deed, which has been relied by the petitioner to state that teak wood trees which were there on the land have been transferred with the land to the petitioner therefore they are entitled for the consideration of that trees sold in auction, is not tenable in present facts and circumstances of the case because sale deed contains that there exists trees. It is not the case that trees were planted by the vendor and for which some extra consideration has been paid by the petitioner. In fact it has come on record that the land in question was declared reserved forest in 1916. It means the said land contained trees over it from long time. As the notification, which has been relied by the petitioner, also speaks that the nature of forest remained reserved forest but transferred to Revenue Department only for its management. The notification dated 26.4.1962 stipulates such condition. The permission which has been granted by the tahsildar is according to "Vrukshon ki katai ka pratibandh ya viniyaman, 2007", for which notification has been published in the gazette on 7.1.2007. The said Regulation is not applicable on the forest lands. Therefore in the considered opinion of this Court, the permission granted by the Tehsildar to petitioner to cut the trees was also not in accordance with the provisions of the Forest Act. However, as the said trees have already been cut and put to auction by the Forest Department, therefore, it became a property of the Forest Department, for which the petitioner cannot claim any consideration of the auction.

With the aforesaid, the petition is dismissed.