The petitioner has taken out present petition seeking below mentioned relief:- “7-B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to get the refund of the amount Rs.2,95,091 from respdt. No.4 and pay it to petitioner along with the remaining amount of Rs.1,12,509/= (One lac twelve thousand and five hundred nine) along with 18% rate of interest from the January 2007 when logs were sold out by respondents but sale prize received got withhold on created reason till the date of receiving by petitioner.”
2. Ms. Mair, learned advocate, has appeared for the petitioner and Mr. Shah, learned AGP, has appeared for the respondent – State.
3. Ms. Mair, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that somewhere in 2003, the petitioner had made an application seeking permission to cut down ten trees which were standing on the land under his ownership. The petitioner claims that on 23.3.2007, after necessary verification, permission to cut down ten trees duly marked by the authorities was granted by the respondent authority. In view of the said permission, the petitioner cut down the trees duly marked by the respondent. Subsequently, in April-2009, the petitioner received communication from the office of respondent No.3 informing the petitioner that the respondent No.4 had raised dispute about the ownership of the trees/the land on which the trees were standing and were cut down by the petitioner. The respondent No.4 claimed that the said trees were standing on S.No.148/3 and that therefore, the respondent informed the petitioner that he should submit necessary material in support of the claim that the trees cut down by the petitioner were on petitioner's land, i.e. S.No.149. The petitioner has claimed that somewhere in August-2009, the DILR authority surveyed and measured the land and submitted the report on 4.8.2009. The report was submitted to the Executive Magistrate. The learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that according to the said report, allegations by respondent No.4 were found to be incorrect.
4. The petitioner has taken out present petition on the ground that the logs of the trees which were cut down by the petitioner were sent to the Forest Market for sale consideration/price, however, the petitioner has not been paid the price of the said trees despite repeated reminders and now, the petitioner has been informed that the consideration towards the trees cut down by the petitioner have been paid/transferred in the account of respondent No.4. Aggrieved by such action of the respondent authority, the petitioner has taken out present petition.
5. Ms. Mair, learned advocate for the petitioner, relied on document at Annexure – C (Page-9), particularly the entry at Sr.No.3 on the said document and submitted that the land bearing S.No.149 is of petitioner's ownership and the trees in question which were cut down by the petitioner were standing on the said S.No.149, which is not of ownership of the respondent No.4 and the said fact is evident from the remark at Sr.No.3 on the said document.
6. Mr. Shah, learned AGP, has relied on document at Annexure-D (Page-11) and submitted that the consideration which has been paid/transferred into the account of respondent No.4 is in respect of “Malki Tree Material” of S.No.148/3 which was sold during the period from 17.12.2007 to 19.12.2007.
7. On examination of the said document at Annexure-D, it emerges that the amount which has been paid to the respondent No.4 is in respect of the material which came to be sold during the period between 17.12.2007 to 19.12.2007 whereas the grievance made by the petitioner is with reference to the trees which were cut down by the petitioner in March – 2007 and that therefore, there does not appear to be any relation between the amount paid by the respondent authority to the respondent No.4 for the trees sold during the period between 17.12.2007 to 19.12.2007 and the trees in respect of which the petitioner has raised the dispute, which, according to the petitioner were cut down and sent to Forest Market in March/April-2007.
8. Under the circumstance, this is not a fit case to be entertained in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
It appears, in the facts and circumstances of present case, that it would be appropriate for the petitioner to approach the respondent authorities with detailed representation supported by relevant documents to establish that the petitioner had cut off certain number of trees standing on his land, i.e. S.No.149, in pursuance of the permission granted under letter dated 21.3.2007 and that the sale-consideration for the said material has yet not been paid to him, i.e. the petitioner.
8.1 The respondent authorities will consider such representation and examine as to whether the amounts have been paid to the petitioner or not. If any amount is payable towards the material sold by the petitioner to the Forest Market, then, such payment will be made within 3 weeks from service of certified copy of present order by the petitioner to the concerned authority.
8.2 If on proper verification, it is found that any amount is not required to be paid, then, appropriate reasoned and speaking order mentioning all relevant details and reasons as to why the petitioner is not entitled for any payment shall be conveyed to the petitioner within period of 3 weeks from service of certified copy of present order.
For the aforesaid purpose, the petitioner is permitted to serve certified copy of present order to the respondent authorities.
9. Since the petition involves disputed issues which would necessitate examination of documentary evidence and if need be, some oral evidence to some extent, the petition does not deserve to be entertained.
If at all the petitioner wants to prosecute his claim before the Court and does not want to make any representation to the respondent authority, then, it would be necessary for the petitioner to approach appropriate trial Court.
With the aforesaid observation and direction, present petition stands disposed of.
Direct service is permitted.
(K.M.Thaker, J.) kdc