Tripura High Court
Mr. Dc Roy vs Ms. S. Deb on 18 November, 2021
Author: Arindam Lodh
Bench: Arindam Lodh
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C) 505/2018
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. DC Roy, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Ms. S. Deb, Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM LODH
Order
18/11/2021
Heard Mr. DC Roy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Ms.
S. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the State-respondents.
Having heard the learned counsel, and after the pleadings are read over,
the solitary question to be decided in this writ petition is that, whether the
prayer of the petitioner for cutting the trees planted and grown over his
allotted plot of land be allowed.
Facts in brief, are that, in the year 1985, the petitioner was allotted with
the land in question over which various kind of trees including teak tress have been planted. By the passage of time, those trees have grown up and the petitioner wanted to cut all those trees and sell those trees to the market. He sought for permission from the Forest Department, but, permission was not granted. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had approached this court. It is not disputed that the land in question over which the trees were grown is the allotted land of the petitioner. The reason for not granting permission to cut and sale the trees grown over the said plot of land is that according to the State-respondents, the land falls within the area of Reserve Forest under Forest Department and under the Forest Conservation Act, no permission can be granted to any person to cut the trees. This matter came up before this court on 25.03.2021 wherein the learned Single Judge (Akil Kureshi, CJ) had observed thus:
"It would prima facie appear that whatever the error on part of the State Government to allot the land in question to the petitioners, there are no allegations of the petitioners misleading the authorities to secure such allotment. That being the position, the petitioners cannot be deprived of the hard labour and patient waiting for over 30 years by refusing to grant permission to extract the trees.
Under such circumstances, the Government may have two options. Either to permit extraction of the trees or to compensate the petitioners by the current market value that the trees if sold today may fetch. However, before I pass any further order, it would be of importance to verify that the two trees and other trees which the petitioners wish to extract were planted by them. The District Forest Officer Shri Chaman Lal who is present before the Court is requested to give a report on the basis of the plantation and the approximate age of the trees standing on the land, whether the claim of the petitioners that these trees were planted by them is substantiated."
In pursuance of the said order dated 25.03.2021, an enquiry was conducted by the authorized officials of the State-respondents. In the report, it is observed that the age of the teak trees which are standing in the area are quite variable from about 2-5 years to about 25 years. The claim of the petitioner that he planted many of those trees in the year 1990 was denied by the State-respondents for the reason that those trees were found to be planted in haphazard manner without keeping proper space between each tree and not in a row-to-row basis. According to them, the trees were grown naturally and the trees are not artificially generated plantation.
I have considered the submission of learned counsel appearing for the parties to the lis.
Annexure-3 to the writ petition makes the cloud clear that the trees were purchased and planted by the petitioner. From the purchase voucher issued by the Forest Department on 29.05.1990, it is revealed that the petitioner had purchased 500 nos. of 'Teak Stamps' for Rs. 250/-. If we compare the said purchase voucher with the report of the Expert Committee constituted by the State-respondents, then, it is found that the teak trees, according to the members of the Committee, were aged about 25 years. Some of the trees may be aged about 2-5 years, which might be planted within a period of 2-5 years.
Accordingly, there is no scope to doubt the statement of the petitioner that he had purchased the trees from the Forest Department and planted the same which were grown up gradually.
I have given my thoughtful consideration that Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act creates an embargo to cut the trees grown up within the Reserved Forest. It is also equally true that the land was allotted to the petitioner by the government and he had planted the trees with the legitimate expectation that one day the trees would grow and he will sell the trees for his earning. I have also observed that the learned Single Judge (Akil Kureshi, CJ) by order dated 25.03.2021 held that the State-respondents shall either permit extraction of the trees or compensate the petitioners by the current market value that the trees if sold today may fetch. When this court unhesitently holds that the teak trees which the petitioner wanted to cut and extract had been purchased and planted by him, then, I have no other alternative but to follow the observation of the learned Single Judge made in the order dated 25.03.2021 that the State-respondents shall either permit extraction of the trees, as sought for by the petitioner, or compensate the petitioner according to the present market rate. Accordingly, I direct the respondents either to permit the petitioner to cut and sale those trees, as sought for by him, or compensate him for those trees which he wanted to extract. The said direction is to be complied with within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. With the above observation and direction, the instant writ petition stands disposed.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed.
JUDGE Saikat