Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19004 of 2019 Petitioner :- Ramesh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Om Prakash Shukla; Sushil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J. Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
The instant petition seeks a direction upon the respondents to calculate and pay compensation of 54 trees planted by petitioner's grand father over Zila Parishad land, which were allegedly cut by the forest department.
The learned standing counsel who appears for the respondent has submitted that no document of title to the land has been filed and, otherwise also, it is the admitted case of the petitioner that the land belongs to the Zila Parishad therefore, in absence of any documentary evidence such as patta etc to show that ownership of trees would vest in the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner, no relief ought to be granted to the petitioner in writ jurisdiction. Rather, the proper course for the petitioner would be to institute a suit.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on report dated 20.01.2015 (Annexure 8 to the petition) submitted by the Tehsildar. The report discloses that although the land is of Zila Parishad but the trees are of Ram Nath son of Mahadeo, who, according to the petitioner is his grandfather. It is thus the case of the petitioner that since the forest department has cut away the trees in the year 2014, the petitioner should be paid compensation.
We have given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions.
As it is not the case of the petitioner that the land belongs to the petitioner or his predecessor in interest, whether the trees standing over the said land could be owned by the petitioner or his predecessor in interest would depend on the terms and conditions of the patta or lease. Neither copy of patta nor of the lease deed has been brought on record. The report on which reliance is placed also does not throw light as to how Ram Nath (alleged grand father of the petitioner) would be owner of trees, particularly when the land is of Zila Parishad.
Under the circumstances, keeping in mind that ordinarily money claims are not to be settled in writ jurisdiction as also that the petitioner might have to lead evidence not only to prove his title over the trees but also about their value including petitioner's entitlement to the compensation as a successor of his grand father, we deem it appropriate to dispose off this petition with liberty to the petitioner to institute a suit.
It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion as regards the merit of the claim as also whether the suit would be within limitation or not.
The petition is disposed off as above.
Order Date :- 30.5.2019 AKShukla/-