Allowed

Dasarathi Behera v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC17 Nov 2023WP(C)/12162/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa set aside a letter rejecting a petitioner's application to remove trees. The court directed the Divisional Forest Officer to reconsider the application afresh within four months, ensuring the petitioner's presence for hearing, demarcation, and joint verification of the plots.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside. The Divisional Forest Officer must consider the application afresh, providing an opportunity of hearing and conducting joint verification.

Dasarathi Behera Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Signature Not Verified

¶2

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 20-Nov-2023 11:11:30

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶4

W.P.(C). NO.12162 OF 2023 Dasarathi Behera …. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. Alok Kumar Panda, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties

¶8

Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA

ORDER

Order No.

17.11.2023

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶15

Petitioner in this writ petition prays for a direction to set aside the Letter of Rejection dated 4^th April, 2023 (Annexure-11) issued by the Divisional Officer, Khordha Division, Khordha.

¶16

Mr. Panda, learned counsel submits that initially the Petitioner had submitted the application to fell and remove 39 (Thirty nine) number of trees from his land in Revenue Plot No.326 under Khata No.19 of Mouza-Kiagorada under the Tahasil-Banpur in the district of Khordha. After joint verification was made, permission was accorded to the Petitioner to remove 39 (Thirty nine) number of trees. The said order was uploaded in the website of the Department. But subsequently, it was removed from the website and a letter was issued opining that a GPS survey was conducted by Range Officer, Balugaon from which was found that some portion of the plot of the Petitioner are inside the Aranga Reserve Forest. Accordingly, the application for felling and removing trees was rejected. Assailing the same, the Petitioner filed

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

// 2 //

¶19

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 20-Nov-2023 11:11:30

¶20

W.P.(C). No.32295 of 2022 and vide order dated 7^th December, 2022 (Annexure-6), this Court disposed of the writ petition with the following direction:

¶21

“5. In that view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Divisional Forest Officer, Khurda Division, Khurda-Opposite Party No.2 to reconsider the application of the Petitioner for removal of forest produce from his land, as aforesaid, giving him an opportunity of hearing and keeping in mind the joint verification report as well as the order of permission, if any, granted earlier in favour of the Petitioner. All endeavour shall be made to dispose of such application afresh as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order.”

¶22

Accordingly, the Petitioner’s application was considered afresh and the impugned letter under Annexure-11 has been issued rejecting his application.

¶23

Mr. Panda, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that as per the request of the Divisional Forest Officer, Khordha Division, Khordha, the Petitioner submitted details of thirteen numbers of trees, he wants to remove in first phase. On a GPS survey made under Annexure-8, it was found that only one tree is standing within the boundary of the Petitioner’s royati land. However, the joint verification/GPS Survey was not conducted in the presence of the Petitioner. When the Petitioner had submitted the details of thirteen (13) numbers of trees to be fallen and removed in the first phase, as requested, the Divisional Forest officer, Khordha Division could not have rejected the application in

¶24

Page 2 of 4

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

// 3 //

¶27

Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 20-Nov-2023 11:11:30

¶28

toto without granting felling permission of tree standing over his plot. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.

¶29

Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel referring to the counter affidavit and more particularly, Annexure C/2 and D/2, the GPS map, submits that only out of thirteen (13) numbers of trees, twelve (12) trees are standing outside the boundary of the royati land of the Petitioner and only one tree is standing within his royati land. He, therefore, submits that no illegality has been committed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Khordha Division, Khordha in rejecting the application of the Petitioner. On a query of the Court, Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel submits that there is no material available on record to show that whether the rest of the trees, details of which have been given in the application for TT permit.

¶30

Taking into consideration the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and the materials placed before the Court, it appears that vide Letter dated 28^th April, 2023 (Annexure-9), the Divisional Forest Officer, Khordha Division, Khordha requested the Petitioner to submit a list of thirteen numbers of trees to be cut by properly marking with red paint for according permission of cutting of trees. It is however, not disputed by the parties that the Petitioner had submitted an application to fell and remove thirty nine numbers of trees. Thus, it is apparent that the authority has not taken any decision regarding the rest twenty six (26) numbers of trees applied for felling and removal.

¶31

Page 3 of 4

¶32

// 4 //

¶33

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ROJALIN NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 20-Nov-2023 11:11:30

¶34

It further appears that while issuing Letter under Annexure11, the authorities have not discussed about the verification report which was submitted pursuant to the application of the Petitioner, at the first instance, although it was specifically directed so by this Court in its order under Annexure-6.

¶35

In that view of the matter, the impugned order under Annexure-11 is not sustainable and is set aside. The Divisional Forest Officer, Khordha Division, Khordha is directed to consider the application filed by the Petitioner afresh by giving him opportunity of hearing including demarcation and joint verification in his presence.

¶36

The Petitioner is also directed to cooperate with the Forest and Revenue Officials for demarcation and joint verification. The entire exercise is conducted as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶37

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶38

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

¶39

(K.R. Mohapatra) Judge

¶40

Rojalin

¶41

Page 4 of 4

Dasarathi Behera v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dasarathi Behera v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umar Alli @Sk.Umar Vs Fatma Bibi

Sonali Priyadarshini Vs State of Odisha

Judhistira Pradhan Vs Susanta Pradhan

Golap Ch.Sahu Vs Ajay Ku.Jena

Alapana Basumallick Vs Shree Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije Srikhetra, Puri

Chakrapani Behera Vs Kanaka Das