Himachal Pradesh High Court
Babu Ram And Another vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Others on 1 August, 2023
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
CWP No. 4101 of 2023
Decided on: August 1, 2023
________________________________________________________
.
Babu Ram and another ...........Petitioners
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and others ....Respondents
________________________________________________________
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? 1No.
For the Petitioners : Mr. Dinesh Bhanot, Advocate.
For the Respondents :
Mr. Rajan Kahol, Mr. Vishal Panwar
and Mr. B.C. Verma, Additional
Advocates General with Mr. Ravi
Chauhan, Deputy Advocate General.
________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):
By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed and the suitable writ, order or direction may kindly issued to the respondents to grant the requisite permission to the permission, in the interest of justice and fair play."
2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite petitioner's having repeatedly approached the authorities for granting necessary permission for felling of trees, no action is being taken. It has been stated in the petition that the petitioner has come to know that the permission to fell trees has been given to Krishan Lal son of Niku Ram, resident of Village Bao, Pargana Malaun, 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2023 20:35:21 :::CIS 2Tehsil Ramshahar, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh but the same has been denied to the petitioner for no cogent reasons.
.
3. Taking note of the averments contained in the present petition, this court, while issuing notices to the respondents, called upon learned Additional Advocate General to have instructions.
4. Pursuant to aforesaid directions, Mr.B.C. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record communication dated 28.7.2023 issued by Conservator of Forests, Forest Circle, Solan, Himachal Pradesh, wherein it has been specifically denied that representation, if any, was ever made by the petitioner seeking therein permission to fell of trees. Apart from above, it has been also stated in the instructions that Krishan Lal son of Niku Ram, who otherwise happens to be brother of the petitioner filed an application on 25.11.2019 alongwith order dated 10.7.2018 passed by learned Additional District Judge-I, Solan camp at Nalagarh, in the office of Divisional Forest Officer, Nalagarh, restraining the present petitioner from alienating the suit land measuring 51 Bigha 8 Biswa bearing Khasra Nos. 95, 432/96, 99, 410/100, 411/101, 109, 114, 119, 122, 123, 125, 127, 414/133, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 145, 146, 416/189, 227, 228, 430/233, 235 and Khasra No. 244 (0-8) comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 1/1 min, Kita 28, and land measuring 08 Biswa bearing Khasra No. 104 and 427/115 comprised in Khata Khatauni No. 11/11 Kita 2 and land measuring 2 Biswa bearing ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2023 20:35:21 :::CIS 3 Khasra No. 245/1 comprised in Khata Khatauni No.12/12 Kita situated in Village Nerli-Chanala, Pargana Chamba, Tehsil Nalagarh, .
District Solan, Himachal Pradesh.
5. It is further stated that petitioner through sale contractor Surender Singh submitted an application for demarcation of land and marking of trees from disputed land, however, no action could be taken pursuant to restraint order passed by learned Additional District Judge-
I, Solan camp at Nalagarh. On 18.9.2021, private sale contractor Surender Singh again applied for marking of Khair trees standing on land of the petitioner but since there was a dispute inter se petitioner and his brother Krishan Lal, land could not be demarcated during prescribed year of felling i.e. 2020-21
6. Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 30.10.2009 passed in IA No. 2370 in WP(C) No. 202/1995 T.N. Godaverman Thirumalkpad v.
Union of India has restrained to deviate from Ten Year Felling Programme fixed by the Forest Department in accordance with provisions of Land Preservation Act. Besides this, Government of Himachal Pradesh vide letter dated 30.3.2022 has also directed that till the clarification from Central Empowered Committee (hereinafter, 'CEC') or order from Hon'ble Apex Court is received, cases for granting permission for demarcation of land and marking of trees may not be processed.
7. Having taken note of aforesaid instructions placed on record, no action of the respondents can be said to be illegal inasmuch they have denied permission to petitioner for felling of trees. Since it is not in ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2023 20:35:21 :::CIS 4 dispute that there is dispute inter se petitioner and Krishan Lal, his brother and in that regard, court of learned Additional District Judge-I, .
Solan camp at Nalagarh has passed a restraint order coupled with the fact that the Government of Himachal Pradesh, has directed not to process the applications for permission for demarcation of land and felling of trees till the time, clarification from Central Empowered Committee or order from Hon'ble Apex Court are received, prayer made in the instant petition cannot be accepted at this juncture.
8. Consequently in view of above, this court finds no merit in the petition and the same is disposed of at this stage, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file representation/application if any, for felling of trees to the competent authority after receipt of clarification from CEC which in turn shall be decided by competent authority in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within four weeks thereafter.
9. The petition stands disposed of in the afore terms, alongwith all pending applications.
(Sandeep Sharma) Judge August 1, 2023 (vikrant) ::: Downloaded on - 03/08/2023 20:35:21 :::CIS