Tripura High Court
The State Of Tripura And Ors vs Smt. Anya Manti Molsom @ Aina Monti ... on 7 November, 2022
Author: Indrajit Mahanty
Bench: Indrajit Mahanty, S.G. Chattopadhyay
Page 1 of 3
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WA No.58 of 2022
The State of Tripura and Ors
................... Appellant(s)
Vs
Smt. Anya Manti Molsom @ Aina Monti Malsom
................... Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. D. Bhattacharya, Government Advocate.
Mr. P Sahu, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raju Datta, Advocate.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY _O_R_D_E_R_ 07/11/2022 (Indrajit Mahanty, C.J.) In the present Writ Appeal challenge has been made to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Single Judge in WP(C) No.823 of 2021 who by order dated 11.1.2022 passed the following directions:
"Having appreciated the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties as well as the records as produced before this Court, it appears that still the land stands in the name of the petitioner. Moreover, there is no dispute about the proprietorship of the trees which are standing on the said land, details of which has been noted before. Since, the trees cannot be claimed by the respondents, they should immediately issue the tree registration certificate in favour of the petitioner only for purpose of extraction of those trees, after issuance of due permit. The entire exercise shall be completed within forty five days from today. Any observation made in this order shall not debar the respondents from Page 2 of 3 taking the approval ex post facto from the Central Government in order to regularize the allotment or to commence any proceeding in respect of the said allotment.
It is made absolutely clear that the petitioner's right to extract the trees as grown by him cannot be objected to or resisted by the respondents. Therefore, necessary permit for transit shall as well be issued to the petitioner.
This writ petition stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs."
Learned Government Advocate in particular stressed on the directions issued by the Hon'ble Single Judge directing that the respondent (State Government) appellant herein may seek approval 'ex post facto' from the Central Government in order to regularize the allotment or to commence any proceeding in respect of the said allotment.
As noted in paragraph - 6 which has been quoted herein above there appears to be no dispute that the land in question belongs to the private respondent. The private respondent has claimed that he had planted the trees on his land and further he asserts that he had sought for permission to cut the trees. Since no such permission was granted even though joint inspection had been carried out by the State authority, he approached this Hon'ble Court.
The Hon'ble Single Judge, in our considered view, has correctly assessed the situation, however, his direction to the effect that the respondent State may seek post facto approval from the Central Government Page 3 of 3 in our considered view defeats the object of law. Inasmuch as after the cutting is permitted and the writ petitioner is allowed to take away the tree, his post facto approval becomes the mere formality. Hence, we allow the writ appeal to the extent of directing the State Government to pursue the application made by the writ petitioner and to seek and obtain the necessary approval of the Central Government prior to granting of any permit for cutting of the trees in accordance with the verification report conducted by the said authority.
The appellant and the Central Government are directed to act on the application made by the writ petitioner within a further period of 3(three) months from today.
With such observations and directions, the writ appeal stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY), J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY), CJ Munna S