Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Sikender Ali Khan vs Conservator Of Forests And Ors. on 7 March, 2003
Equivalent citations: AIR2003AP345, 2003(3)ALD674, AIR 2003 ANDHRA PRADESH 345, (2004) 7 ANDH LT 950 (2003) 3 ANDHLD 674, (2003) 3 ANDHLD 674
ORDER V.V.S. Rao, J.
1. This writ petition is filed for issuance of a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO), Jannaram, Adilabad District, the second respondent herein, in not granting the required number of transit permits in respect of the timber as enumerated by the Forest Range Officer on 13-1-1995, is illegal and arbitrary and for a consequential direction to the second respondent to issue required number of transit permits.
2. The petitioner is the power of attorney holder of one Kompatti Ashaloo and seven others, who were owners of the land ad measuring Acs.3.03 gts. comprised in Sy.No. 9 of Odamput village, Kaddam Mandal in Adilabad District. At the relevant time, he was also the GPA holder of Kommari Venkatta and Bakkanna, who were owners of the land ad measuring Ac.0.33 gts. in Sy.No. 111 of the same village. There were teak and non-teak trees available on the land. Therefore, as the GPA holder of the above said persons, he applied to the second respondent for granting permission to fell the trees and for issue of transit permits on 8-6-1991 and 7-5-1992. Subsequently, he also purchased the said extents by registered sale deeds. It is the case of the petitioner that the second respondent by letters dated 29-7-1991 and 6-7-1992 requested the Mandal Revenue Officer (MRO), Kaddam, to furnish 20 column pro forma and certificate of title of forest produce along with tonch plan for the said survey numbers. The MRO, by letters dated 9-6-1992 and 28-7-1992 sent 20 column pro forma and also duiy certifying the rights of the pattadars and the forest produce on the lands. The DFO by letters dated 29-7-1991 and 14-5-1992 addressed the third respondent namely, the Forest Range Officer (FRO), Birsaipet, to inspect the land and to furnish the sketch in respect of the lands in Sy.Nos. 9 and 111. A detailed report submitted by the FRO on 28-10-1993 and based on the same, on 24-11-1993, the DFO submitted a report to the Conservator of Forests, Adilabad, the first respondent herein, for according permission to remove the trees on the lands in question. The first respondent by orders dated 2-12-1993 accorded permission.
3. The petitioner completed felling in February, 1994 and submitted the log list in the office of the DFO in September, 1994. He also sought permission for transportation of timber. The Forest officials inspected the patta land and found that log register shown by the petitioner is correct. The FRO, by letter dated 13-1-1995 informed that 69.854 cmt. teak and 22.331 cmt. non-teak timber in Sy.No. 9 and 33.477 cmt. teak and 12.505 cmt. non-teak timber in Sy.No. 111. The enumeration list was submitted to the DFO to accord permission and issue transit permits. The DFO also inspected the patta land and forwarded the concerned file to the first respondent. It is the allegation of the petitioner that in the office of the first respondent the officials made certain illegal and unreasonable demand and as he was not willing to comply with the demand he was threatened that they would foist a false case against him. Contending that it is only the DFO who is competent to issue. transit permits and there was no necessity to forward the file to the first respondent and also contending that in view of the report submitted by the third respondent dated 13-1-1995, non-issuance of transit permits is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the A.P. Forest Act, 1967 and the A.P. Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1970, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.
4. The writ petition was admitted on 3-4-1995 and the respondents were directed to file a counter affidavit. The third respondent filed a counter affidavit denying various allegations made in the affidavit of the petitioner. It is the case of the respondents that as per the felling permission, the petitioner was required to complete felling and transportation within 45 days from the date of permission. The permission was granted on 24-1-1994. The petitioner completed felling operations within time, but he has not obtained transit permits and he has not furnished any information to the office of the DFO till 26-8-1994, by which time the permission expired. After receiving the petitioner's application for grant of permission, the second respondent directed the third respondent to inspect and furnish a report. Accordingly, the third respondent submitted a report on 13-1-1995 stating that as per the original enumeration certain logs of timber stored by the petitioner are missing. On reliable information that the petitioner has illegally added fresh teak logs, the third respondent inspected and submitted a report on 25-3-1995 to the effect that 277 fresh teak logs were illegally added and stored along with the old stock of timber amounting to 32,507 cmt. of the value of Rs. 4,13,956/-. Accordingly, the third respondent registered an offence being POR No. 37/9, dated 25-3-1995 under Sections 20, 29 and 52 of the Act. In view of the pendency of the criminal case, permission could not be granted by the Forest Department. It is also stated that as per the reliable information received by the department, the petitioner has obtained permission for felling the trees by deceiving the Forest officials and steps were being taken to ascertain the nature of the land from which timber has been extracted. Therefore, transit permits cannot be granted to the petitioner until survey of the land is completed.
5. The petitioner also filed a miscellaneous application being W.P.M.P. No. 7810 of 1995 praying for ad interim direction to the second respondent to issue transit permits in respect of the timber felled and cut into pieces as enumerated by the third respondent in his report submitted to the second respondent with covering letter dated 13-1-1995 in Sy.Nos. 9 and 111 of Birsaipet village. This Court by an order dated 28-4-1995, having regard to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, passed orders to the following effect:
Having heard Mr. P. Sitarama Raju, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Tulsi Reddy, the learned Government Pleader, I direct the second respondent to issue transit permits to the petitioner enabling him to transport timber both teak and non-teak and which is the subject matter of the proceedings of the third respondent in Rc.Nos. 249/Patta/94-95 and 320/Patta/94-95, dated 13-1-1995 subject to the petitioner furnishing immovable property security, either self or third party, which can be by deposit of title deeds also for the value of Rs. 3,00,000/-. It is made clear that 277 teak logs, which have been seized pursuant to the report of the Forest Range Officer, Birsaipet dated 25-3-1995, shall not form part of the above transit permit. Time for issuing transit permit is granted by one week after furnishing security mentioned above.
6. The petitioner filed a contempt case being C.C.No. 573 of 1995 alleging that though he furnished immovable property security for an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/-, the respondents did not comply with the orders of this Court dated 28-4-1995 in W.P.M.P.No. 7810 of 1995. The contempt case was admitted on 11-9-1995. In the meanwhile, the second respondent issued a notice dated 30-9-1995 asking the petitioner to meet the second respondent for verification of the discrepancy in the quantity of timber found by the third respondent. The petitioner, therefore, filed a contempt application being C.A.No. 695 of 1995 in C.C.No. 573 of 1995. This Court by an order dated 2-9-1995 suspended the notice issued by the second respondent. The contempt case was disposed of on 4-12-1995 directing the respondents to accept the immovable property security offered by the petitioner and issue transit permits to enable him to transport the forest produce enumerated in the list by proceedings dated 13-1-1995. The petitioner was directed to furnish bank guarantee in favour of the second respondent for Rs. 2,50,000/- and the second respondent was directed to deliver 277 teak logs also to the petitioner subject to the petitioner furnishing bank guarantee. The petitioner furnished bank guarantee and during the period from January 1993 to March 1993, as many as nine transit permits were issued for teak and one transit permit for non-teak timber. It is not denied that the petitioner was given transit permits for transporting 90.65 cmt. teak timber. Be it also noted that the criminal Court has taken cognizance of the case and it is still pending and charge sheet was filed on 24-4-2002.
7. In view of the subsequent events and also in view of the interim orders as well as orders passed in the contempt case, the question relates to issue of transit permits for 12.65 cmt. teak timber and 27.45 cmt. of non-teak timber. Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for Forests do not deny this aspect of the matter.
8. Sri M. Dhanunjaya Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the certificate issued by the MRO on 28-7-1992 certifying that Sy.Nos.9 and 111 are patta lands having teak and non-teak trees is conclusive proof and the Forest officials have no power or jurisdiction to differ from the same. Secondly, he contends that by two letters sent on 13-1-1995, one in respect of Sy.No. 111 and other in respect of Sy.No. 9, the third respondent reported that there is 33.477 cmt. of teak and 12.505 cmt. of non-teak in Sy.No. 111 and 69.854 cmt of teak and 23.331 cmt. of non-teak timber present in Sy.No. 9, and, therefore, there was no necessity for the DFO to forward the file to the first respondent or to get the matter enquired into again. The enquiry into the alleged addition of 277 fresh logs was conducted behind the back of the petitioner and, therefore, the respondents cannot rely on any fresh enquiry and deny the petitioner transit permits.
9. Sri G. Jayaprakash Babu, learned Government Pleader for Forests, submits that the reports submitted by the FRO (third respondent) on 13-1-1995 were found to be incorrect. Therefore, the DFO got the inventory made of teak and non-teak logs on the petitioner's land and found that they were not tallying with the list of logs prepared by the FRO. He also submits that the teak and non-teak timber logs which were felled and tallied with the inventory made on 13-1-1995 were already permitted to be transported under ten transit permits. He also submits that these are the matters which are disputed questions of fact and no interference is called for in this writ petition.
10. The two questions that arise for consideration are as to (i) the true interpretation of Rule 5 of the A.P. Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1970 and (ii) whether respondents 1 and 2 are bound to treat the report of third respondent dated 13-1-1995 as final and conclusive regarding the number of teak and non-teak timber logs and its quantity?
In Re Point No. (i)
11. The petitioner claims that he is entitled for transit permits for 103.331 cmt. of teak timber and 35.836 cmt. of non-teak timber. As noticed supra, the petitioner was given transit permits for 90.656 cmt. of teak (761 logs) and for 8.379 cmt. (69 logs) of non-teak timber. Therefore, the controversy is only in relation to the balance teak and non-teak timber i.e., 12.665 cmt. and 27.417 cmt. respectively.
12. The submission made is that the certificate issued by the MRO on 28-7-1992 is conclusive evidence of the right and title of the petitioner and, therefore, there cannot be any further enquiry at the time of issue of transit permits. It is not denied that the application made by the petitioner on 8-6-1991 seeking permission for felling and transporting tree growth existing on the patta land comprised in Sy.No. 9 was forwarded to the MRO, Kaddam, who by a letter dated 9-6-1992 certified that the land in Sy.No. 9 of Odampur village is patta land of Sri Kompalli Ashaloo and seven others and that they are having title over the forest produce. As directed, the FRO, Birsaipet submitted a detailed report on 28-10-1993 along with a super imposed sketch df the patta land in Sy.No. 9 with reference to the boundaries of the reserve forest as well as revenue boundaries. The file was submitted to the Conservator of Forests, who by proceedings dated 2-12-1993 accorded permission for felling and removal of tree growth in the patta land in Sy.No. 9. Based on such sanction, the DFO issued proceedings on 24-1-1994 according permission subject to the conditions that - (i) a security deposit of Rs. 20,000/- in the shape of fixed deposit in the name of DFO, Jannaram should be given; (ii) felling and transporting should be completed within forty-five days; iii) no fruit bearing tree shall be felled; and (iv) that the petitioner should start felling in serial starting at Sl.No. l as enumerated and serially numbering the logs and stump sizes. In relation to the tree growth in Sy.No. 111 also, similar procedure was adopted and permission was granted on 24-1-1994 after obtaining report from the MRO, Kaddam.
13. The A.P. Forest Act ('the Act') is primarily intended for the protection and management of forests in the State. As per Section 2(f) of the Act, the Chief Conservator, Deputy Chief Conservator, Conservator, Deputy Conservator, Divisional Forest Officer, Ranger, Deputy Ranger, Forester, Forest Guard etc., are forest officers. Chapter IX of the Act confers powers on forest officers inter alia to enter upon any land and survey, demarcate and make a map of the same; to hold enquiries into forest offences and record evidence in that connection; to compound the offences and conduct statutory enquiry. Under Section 64 of the Act, any forest officer not below the rank of Forester may inspect any private forest or land within his jurisdiction for the purpose of ascertaining whether there is any contravention of any provisions of the Act. Section 68 empowers the Government to make Rules to carry out all the purposes of the Act in general, and Rules specially providing inter alia for the preservation and disposal of timber belonging to the Government.
14. The Act also provides for penalties under Section 20. Sub-section (1) of Section 20 deals with various contraventions and Sub-clauses (iv) and (x) of Clause (c) of Sub-section (1) of Section 20 provide that whoever fells or burns any tree and removes any forest produce shall be punishable with imprisonment or fine. Sub-section (2) of Section 20 provides for exceptions and lays down that no contravention enumerated in Sub-section (1) of Section 20 shall be punishable if any action is done in accordance with any Rules or with the permission in writing of the DFO or an officer authorised by him. Section 59 provides for compounding of offences. Section 60 contains a presumption that where a question arises as to whether any forest produce is property of the State Government it shall be presumed that the property belongs to the State Government until contrary is proved. Therefore, a person who claims that timber belongs to him, be it grown on the patta land or on the forest land leased to such person, the burden lies on such person to prove that the timber in question, in fact, belongs to him.
15. The Act also regulates the possession and transit of timber and other forest produce. Section 29 empowers the State Government to regulate movement of timber or forest produce without a permit of a forest officer duly authorised to issue the same and also taking necessary precaution for affixing transit marks and verifying such marks on the timber. Under Section 29(3), the Government has power to exempt such classes of timber or other forest produce from the application of the Rules made under Section 29(1). Under Sub-section (4) of Section 29, any contravention of Rules made under Section 29 is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year without fine and with fine which may extend to Rs. 2,000/- or with both.
16. In exercise of powers conferred under Section 29(1) read with Sub-section (1) of Section 68, the Governor of Andhra Pradesh promulgated Rules known as A.P. Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1970 ('the Rules'). Forest produce in transit includes forest produce found stored in any place. Rule 3 provides that no forest produce shall be moved within the State by land or water unless such produce is accompanied by a permit therefor issued under Rule 5 and produced for check immediately on demand. Rule 4 lays down that timber exceeding 25 cmt. in girth at its thickest part and one meter in length, except timber sawn into sizes shall not be moved into or from or within the State of Andhra Pradesh unless such timber bears a distinguishable Government transit mark of such description as mentioned in the permit authorising transit of timber. Sub-rules (1), (2), (3) and (8) of Rule 5 are relevant and read as under.
5.(1) The Divisional Forest Officer or an Officer or person duly authorised by him in this behalf shall, subject to the provisions of the rules, issue a permit in Form-I in respect of forest produce to be removed by the lessee of the Forest Department from leased areas and in Form-II in all other cases. The Divisional Forest Officer may refuse to issue such permits, if he has any doubt either of ownership or the existence of forest produce itself and, may withhold the issue of transit permits till it is proved to his satisfaction that the forest produce that exists lawfully belongs to the applicant.
(2) The Divisional Forest Officer may satisfy himself about the presence of forest produce to be removed and shall determine the number of permits required, keeping in view the estimated quantity of the forest produce.
(3) The Divisional Forest Officer may, for the purpose of issue of permits in Form-II for the forest produce to be removed from private lands, ascertain about the rights and titles over the forest produce from such Revenue Officer of the district, as may be specified by the Conservator of Forests.
Explanation :--A certificate issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer or other authorised person in the form prescribed by the concerned Conservator of Forests shall be considered as conclusive evidence of the rights and titles of individuals over the tree growth.
(8) In the event of the Divisional Forest Officer authorising any person not being a forest officer to issue the permits, as specified in Sub-rule (1), he may, if considered expedient in the interests of safeguarding forest produce belonging to the Government lay down conditions for such authorization and also collect a reasonable sum of money as security for the fulfilment of such conditions.
17. In respect of timber or forest produce grown on private land, the DFO is required to give permit in Form No. II under Rule 5(1) of the Rules. If the DFO has any doubt either about ownership or as to the existence of the forest produce itself he may withhold the issue of permit till it is proved to his satisfaction that the forest produce that exists lawfully belongs to the applicant. The DFO is required to satisfy himself about the presence of the forest produce belongs to the applicant and also he is required to give as many number of permits required keeping in view the estimated quantity. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 is to the effect that whenever a request is made for issue of permit in Form No. II of forest produce to be removed from the forest land, he may ascertain the rights and titles over the forest produce from such Revenue Officer as may be specified by the Conservator of Forests.
18. The explanation to Sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 stipulates that the certificate issued by the Revenue Officer shall be considered as conclusive proof of the rights and title of the individuals over the tree growth. Insofar as the issue of permit under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 is concerned, the ultimate decision as to whether the timber or forest produce belongs to the applicant is subject matter of satisfaction of the DFO. It cannot depend only on the certificate issued by the Revenue Officer i.e., MRO. A reading of Sub-rules (1) and (2) of Rule 5 makes it abundantly clear that the DFO is entitled to refuse a transit permit if he has any doubt either on ownership or to the existence of the forest produce itself. Reading relevant sub-rules harmoniously would show that insofar as the ownership over the land and tree growth thereon are concerned, the DFO may rely on the certificate issued by the MRO, but having regard to the language used in Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5, it must be concluded that the DFO has to satisfy himself about the presence of forest produce to be removed and "shall also determine the number of permits required keeping in mind the estimated quantity of the forest produce". Thus, insofar as the quantity of forest produce in respect of which permits were to be issued cannot, by any stretch of imagination, depend on the certificate issued by the MRO. If absolute conclusivity is attached to the certificate issued by the MRO, it would result in incongruous situation and may work out to the detriment of the patta-holders who have timber growth on their land. As the MRO issues certificate based on the Revenue records, at best may certify as to the relevant entries in the records regarding ownership and the crop grown on the same, the certificate cannot be conclusive insofar as the quantity of timber growth is concerned, which is again a matter requiring on the spot enumeration of timber logs by the forest officer having regard to Rule 6 of the Rules which require registration of property marks on the timber.
19. The relevant record produced before this Court would show that on the request made by the DFO, the MRO submitted the information of the 20-column pro forma and the tonch map duly enclosing the relevant pahani. After perusing the same, it is not possible to countenance the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that it is conclusive proof insofar as the quantity of timber is concerned. The MRO nowhere mentioned about the quantity of teak or non-teak timber and he does not even say that there is a tree growth on the land in question. Therefore, the submission that the certificate issued by the MRO under explanation to Sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Rules is conclusive as to the rights over the land as well as quantity of timber, is devoid of merits and the same is misconceived. The certificate issued by the MRO or any other Revenue Officer is evidence of the right and title of the individual over the land with tree growth and not right of the individual over a specified quantity of timber growth which is again to be determined after conducting due enquiry by the DFO. Therefore, Point No. 1 is answered against the petitioner and in favour of the State.
In Re Point No. (ii)
20. It is on the record that felling permission was granted by the DFO on 24-1-1994 and the petitioner completed felling operations in February, 1994. As per the proceedings of the DFO, dated 24-1-1994, the petitioner was required to complete felling and transporting within a period of forty-five days from the date of issue of the order, which was not done. Even after felling, he did not complete logging operations allegedly due to his ill-health and ultimately submitted the logging list in the month of September, 1994. He submitted an application some time in August/September, 1994 seeking transit permit under Rule 5(1) of the Rules. The third respondent who received the application deputed the Forester to enumerate and measure the cubical contents of the logs. The third respondent also inspected the land to counter-check the cubical contents of the logs submitted by the Forester and allegedly found the measurements to be correct. He sent two reports on the same date on 13-1-1995. In the report with regard to Sy.No. 9, he requested the DFO to accord permission for transport of timber by issuing nine permits for teak timber and three permits for non-teak timber. He also stated that there is 69.854 cmt. of teak and 23.331 cmt. of non-teak timber present in the patta land comprised in Sy.No. 9 of Odampur village. In another report bearing same date in relation to Sy.No. 111, he stated that there is 33.477 cmt. of teak and 12.505 cmt. of non-teak timber present in the patta land and requested the DFO to issue four permits for teak and two permits for non-teak timber. The third respondent enclosed the logging list of patta land to both the reports. The logging list contains the tree name, log No., length, girth and quantity of each log for each survey number separately. As no orders were passed by the DFO, the petitioner filed the writ petition on 31-3-1995 seeking a direction to the second respondent to issue transit permits.
21. In the meanwhile, on 25-3-1995 the third respondent submitted another report stating that he along with Rampur sector staff inspected the patta land in Sy.Nos. 9 and 111 and found illegal storage of teak logs, that 277 teak logs valued at Rs. 4,13,956/- were stored in the patta land, that the enquiry reveled that the petitioner brought illicit timber from the reserve forest and stored in the patta land in Sy.Nos. 9 and 111, that the DFO, Jannaram, Flying Squad, DFO, Nirmal and Conservator of Forests, Adilabad Circle inspected the patta land on 21-3-1995, and that a forest offence being FOR No. 37/9 dated 25-3-1995 was registered against the petitioner. He also requested the DFO to accord permission tox prosecute the petitioner. The 277 teak logs (32.507 cmt.) were also seized and a report was submitted to the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Nirmal along with a statement showing illicit timber giving particulars of tree name, log numbers, length, girth and quantity of each log.
22. This Court passed interim orders on 28-4-1995 directing the DFO to issue transit permits for teak and non-teak timber felled excluding 277 teak logs subject to the petitioner furnishing immovable property security to the value of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The second respondent while placing the matter before the first respondent sought for orders as to release of teak and non-teak timber to the petitioner. In the meanwhile, the contempt case was filed on 23-8-1995 alleging violation of the order dated 28-4-1995 passed in W.RM.P.No. 7810 of 1995. The second respondent submitted a report on 26-12-1995 informing that the log list submitted by the third respondent vide report dated 13-1-1995 is wrong and that though 833 logs were not felled, the third respondent submitted a false list of 833 logs providing a chance to the petitioner to add 277 logs which were actually not part of the material of the patta land. He also requested to initiate disciplinary action against the concerned Forester, Rampur as well as FRO. The said report also discloses that FRO (B) conducted inventory of the logs of timber for the trees falling in the patta land and found that 277 logs of teak timber were illegally added to timber felled in both the patta lands. A detailed inventory was conducted on 21-3-1995 in connection with Crime No. POR.37/9 regarding log numbers, length, girth, butt end, top end and quantity and a comparison was done to tally with the log list enclosed to the report of the FRO dated 13-1-1995. It was ultimately found that it was not tallying with the report and accordingly a report was submitted to the Conservator of Forests, Adilabad.
23. Sri M. Dhanunjaya Reddy, learned Counsel, vehemently contends that the log list enclosed to the report of the FRO dated 13-1-1995 must be treated as true and correct and the log list prepared on 21-3-1995 in the presence of the petitioner cannot be relied on. This submission cannot be accepted for two reasons. Admittedly, the petitioner is entitled for the teak and non-teak timber which was felled after obtaining permission from the Conservator of Forests and the DFO. It is also not denied that the petitioner is not entitled for any teak timber or non-teak timber which was not felled on the patta land and that the competent authority to decide the quantity of timber in respect of which permits can be granted is the DFO and not FRO. At best, the FRO is an officer to conduct a preliminary verification and his report cannot be final. Secondly, as already noticed, the DFO is entitled under Rule 5(1) of the Rules to refuse a transit permit if he has any doubt over the ownership or existence of the forest produce. Here it is not the case of ownership, but existence or otherwise of 277 logs of teak in the patta land. The DFO, Jannaram and Flying Squad as well as Conservator of Forests inspected the land again on 21-3-1995 and found that 277 teak logs were subsequently added and were brought from the reserve forest. For arriving at this satisfaction, a very rational and foolproof method appears to have been followed. With the assistance of the learned Government Pleader I have compared some of the entries in the log list accompanying the report of the third respondent dated 13-1-1995 and the inventory details/log list prepared on 21-3-1995 in connection with forest offence in POR No. 37/9. All the 277 teak logs contained in the inventory details are not tallying with the logs with similar numbers in the list enclosed to the report dated 13-1-1995 sent by the third respondent When the evidence is so clinching, it would be futile for the learned Counsel to contend that those 277 teak logs were felled on the patta land of the petitioner.
24. The review of an administrative decision under Article 226 of the Constitution is essentially a review of the decision making process, it is, therefore, obvious that correctness or incorrectness of the decision is not within the purview of judicial review as appellate jurisdiction is not exercised under Article 226. The power, therefore, is subject to various limitations, one such being that this Court ordinarily does not adjudicate upon seriously disputed questions of fact. It is no doubt true that if a decision is challenged as irrational or arbitrary, it may be necessary to consider the facts also by applying the test of reasonableness. It does not, however, mean that a finding of fact based on record, however, unpalatable it may be to the Court, cannot be interfered with in exercise of powers under Article 226.
25. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India, it was observed:
It is open to the Court to review the decision-maker's evaluation of the facts. The Court will intervene where the facts taken as a whole could not logically warrant the conclusion of the decision-maker. If (he weight of facts pointing to one course of action is overwhelming, then a decision the other way, cannot be upheld............
26. Conversely, the weight of facts pointing to one course of action is overwhelming and the decision against the petitioner cannot be interfered with.
27. The Act and the Rules entrust the forest officers with the duty to protect the forests and regulate the affairs in relation to all kinds of forest produce. The Rules empower the forest officer with abundant powers to determine whether or not a forest produce comes from the reserve forest or patta land. By reason of Section 60 of the Act, if a question is raised as to whether forest produce is property of the State Government, the law presumes the forest produce to belong to the State Government and the burden is on the person who claims that such forest produce is the yield of his patta land. The petitioner is relying on a report of the FRO dated 13-1-1995 which has been found to be incorrect and false. When once the document relied on by the petitioner is proved to be false, his contention that the 277 teak logs belong to him cannot be upheld. He has not discharged the burden to the satisfaction of the Court. Further, the fact that he did not complete logging operations for a long time though he felled all the teak and non-teak trees within the time stipulated and the statement of witness (J.Rajanna) recorded during the time of enquiry by the DFO on 21-3-1995 and unsatisfactory explanation given by the petitioner would show that respondents 1 and 2 were justified in not issuing transit permits in respect of 277 teak logs which were not tallying with the teak logs with similar numbers as per the list enclosed to the report dated 13-1-1995. Point No. 2 is held accordingly against the petitioner.
28. By reason of the orders passed by this Court in C.C. No. 573 of 1995, it appears that 277 teak logs were also delivered to the petitioner on furnishing bank guarantee for an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-. It is in the record that the Forest Department valued 277 teak logs at Rs. 4,13,956/-, The Department is entitled to recover the same and also take necessary steps for recovering the balance cost of 277 teak logs, if necessary by proceeding against the immovable property which was given as security at the time of release of timber.
29. In the result, the writ petition, with the above observations, is dismissed with costs.