Amritlal Saood Vs Regnl.Chief Conserv

¶1

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Nov-2025 12:04:23

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶3

W.P.(C) No. 18223 of 2014

¶4

(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950).

¶5

Amritlal Sood …. Petitioner(s) -versus…. Regional Chief Conservator of Opposite Party (s) Forests, Bhawanipatna and Ors.

¶6

Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode :

¶7

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rabinarayan Nayak, Adv : For Opposite Party (s) Mr. Bibekananda Nayak, AGA

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI

¶10

DATE OF HEARING:-28.10.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-07.11.2025

¶11

Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

¶12

1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to quash the order dated 31.03.2013 passed by the Opposite Party No.2/ Divisional Forest Officer, Khariar Division, Khariar and the appellate order dated 24.07.2014 passed by the Opposite Party No.1/ Regional Chief Conservator of Forests, Bhawanipatna Circle and to direct issuance of a transit permit for removal of plantation timber from his Sthitiban holdings.

¶13

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

¶14

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

¶15

Page 1 of 12

¶16

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Nov-2025 12:04:23

¶17

(i) The petitioner, a resident of Boloda in Nuapada district, holds multiple plots in Khata No. 7 and 8 recorded as Sthitiban in the ROR, on which he planted Eucalyptus, Gambhar, and Teak; on 16.05.2006 he applied in Form III to the DFO, Khariar Division, for a transit permit to remove planted Gambhar and Teak under Rule 7(8) of the 1980 Transit Rules, and separately on 07.05.2007 he applied in Form III-A to remove Eucalyptus outside the State, which was permitted on 07.09.2007.

¶18

(ii) The DFO flagged defects by letters dated 27.07.2006 and 31.07.2006; a corrected application was received on 15.09.2006; on 08.09.2008 the DFO sought the Tahasildar’s record verification, and the Tahasildar on 06.12.2008 reported that some applied plots were “Aat” kisam and others recorded as “Jungle” in the ROR.

¶19

(iii) Joint verification was scheduled for 25.12.2008 for some plots and again on 10.10.2009 for other plots; the Range Officer submitted a joint verification report on 15.09.2011 referencing the 10.10.2009 exercise.

¶20

(iv) A test check was ordered by office memo dated 23.11.2011 and reported on 01.12.2011, noting procedural defects in the joint verification such as missing signature, girth measurement issues, and routing; on 09.12.2011 the DFO returned the JV for resubmission and informed the petitioner.

¶21

(v) On 12.03.2012 the DFO directed a fresh joint verification with proper enumeration and submission through the Tahasildar; subsequently, in compliance with this Court’s order dated

¶22

Page 2 of 12

¶23

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Nov-2025 12:04:23

¶24

13.12.2012 in W.P.(C) No. 17058 of 2012, the DFO on 29.01.2013 permitted felling from plots classified as “Aat” and on 31.03.2013 rejected the application for plots recorded as “Jungle”.

¶25

(vi) The petitioner challenged the 31.03.2013 rejection; on 15.04.2014 this Court directed him to pursue an appeal under Rule 7(3); he filed the appeal on 05.05.2014 before the Regional CCF, enclosing Government of India guidelines dated 20.10.2003; after a hearing on 31.05.2014, the Regional CCF dismissed the appeal on 24.07.2014, treating the “Jungle” entries in the ROR as attracting forest law constraints.

¶26

(vii) The present writ petition seeks quashing of the DFO’s order dated 31.03.2013 and the Regional CCF’s appellate order dated 24.07.2014, and a direction to issue a transit permit based on joint verification already undertaken, while the respondents maintain that permits were issued for “Aat” plots and declined for plots recorded as “Jungle” per the record and governing legal framework.

¶27

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:

¶28

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

¶29

(i) The petitioner asserts that Rule 7(8) of the 1980 Transit Rules is a self-contained code mandated by this Court in OJC No. 4447 of 1994 to curb harassment in private tree felling from recorded holdings. He contends every stage has a firm time limit. He pleads serial breaches by the DFO and Tahasildar in forwarding the

¶30

Page 3 of 12

¶31

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Nov-2025 12:04:23

¶32

application, fixing and completing joint verification, communicating results, and concluding test check. He argues that after the thirty day limit the test check is deemed clean and the DFO must proceed to register the property hammer mark and issue the permit. He submits that the authorities’ silence and repeated re-openings after JV and test check are illegal and amount to colourable exercise of power.

¶33

(ii) He contends the authorities wrongly invoked the Forest Conservation Act to deny a Transit Permit under Transit Rules. According to him the FCA concerns diversion or dereservation and not removal of planted trees from private Sthitiban holdings. He relies on Government of India guidelines dated 20.10.2003 clarifying that the term forest does not cover plantations on private lands unless notified as private forest. He states his SABIK ROR shows non-forest status and that a HAL entry describing Eucalyptus Jungle reflects plantation on private land and is not a notification of private forest. He alleges non-application of mind since the orders ignore the controlling Transit Rule framework, the JV already done, and the central guidelines placed on record.

¶34

(iii) The petitioner pleads arbitrariness and discrimination. From the same khata, the department permitted removal of Eucalyptus but declined Teak and Gambhar planted by him, without rational distinction. He says the DFO unlawfully imposed a new condition that Jungle kisam plots be excluded from JV, although Rule 7(8) contains no such restriction for private recorded holdings. He

¶35

Page 4 of 12

¶36

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Nov-2025 12:04:23

¶37

frames this as hostile treatment and as a direct chill on private afforestation efforts, contrary to public policy that seeks more green cover.

¶38

(iv) He asserts contemptuous disregard of this Court’s order dated 13.12.2012 directing a final decision within six weeks. He points to a contempt petition already filed. He argues that repeated delays and fresh JVs after the statutory clock had run defeat the rule of law, vitiate the decision-making process, and justify judicial intervention to enforce the statutory timeline and the earlier JV outcome.

¶39

(v) He answers the respondents’ reliance on Supreme Court orders under the forest matters by arguing that those orders encourage social forestry and allow transport of plantation wood in accordance with State Transit Rules. He says the department has misconstrued the 12.12.1996 order and Section 2 of the FCA, and has ignored the 2003 central guidelines that segregate private plantations from the mischief of FCA, leaving them to be regulated by the State Transit regime that was itself framed on judicial direction.

¶40

(vi) He finally urges that the impugned orders are illegal, unjust, and reflect non-application of mind. He claims a constitutional property right under Article 300A to harvest trees he planted on his own land, subject only to the Transit Rules which he has complied with. He seeks quashing of the DFO’s order dated 31.03.2013 and the appellate order dated 24.07.2014 and a

¶41

Page 5 of 12

¶42

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Nov-2025 12:04:23

¶43

mandamus to issue the Transit Permit based on the completed joint verification, failing which irreparable prejudice will persist and the larger objective of encouraging private plantations will be undermined.

¶44

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:

¶45

4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

¶46

(i) The writ petition lacks cause of action and is not maintainable in fact or law, as the impugned orders comply with governing statutes and binding directions. The Regional CCF’s order is not violative of the Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980, and the DFO’s decision accords with controlling legal principles.

¶47

(ii) Any area recorded as “Jungle” in government records falls within the expression “forest land” for the purposes of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, as declared by the Supreme Court on 12.12.1996 in W.P. No. 202 of 1995. Consequently, without prior approval of the Central Government, permissions that would enable assignment or use inconsistent with forest status cannot be granted on such lands, irrespective of private ownership.

¶48

(iii) The Tahasildar’s letter dated 06.12.2008 confirmed that several plots applied for are recorded as “Jungle” in the ROR, thereby attracting Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act. Permissions were therefore lawfully confined to “Aat” kisam plots and withheld for “Jungle” kisam plots. The decision to permit felling on “Aat” plots by letter

¶49

Page 6 of 12

¶50

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Nov-2025 12:04:23

¶51

dated 29.01.2013 and to reject the balance by order dated 31.03.2013 is presented as a faithful application of the statutory scheme.

¶52

(iv) The Transit Rules cannot be invoked to override the Forest Conservation Act. Where plots are recorded as “Jungle”, the Forest Conservation Act controls, and the alleged timelines or deeming clauses under the Transit Rules do not compel issue of permits contrary to Section 2. The deponent asserts that until defects in the joint verification are rectified, the process under the Transit Rules cannot move forward, and any claimed deeming completion is inapplicable when the JV itself is procedurally deficient.

¶53

(v) The test check validly identified material defects in the joint verification, including lack of signature, improper measurement, and incorrect routing. Ordering a fresh joint verification and proper submission through the Tahasildar was necessary and lawful. The petitioner’s charge of delay-induced illegality is answered by the need for accuracy across many plots and trees and by cross-verification of HAL and SABIK records.

¶54

(vi) The appellate authority’s order is defended as legal, proper, and consistent with the Forest Conservation Act and the Supreme Court’s interpretation. The reliance on ROR entries describing land as “Jungle” is said to be determinative for the purposes of Section 2, and the petitioner’s failure, as alleged, to produce SABIK ROR at the appellate stage further weakened his challenge. On this basis, the affidavit prays for dismissal of the writ petition with costs.

¶55

Page 7 of 12

¶56

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Nov-2025 12:04:23

¶57

IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:

¶58

5. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed before this Court.

¶59

6. The petitioner, owner of Sthitiban (private) land, applied under Rule 7(8) of the Orissa Transit Rules, 1980, for permission to fell his plantation trees. After repeated delays in joint verification (JV) and test‐check, the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO) granted permits only for plots recorded as Aat kisam and refused permits for plots entered as “Jungle” in the Revenue Record of Rights (ROR). The petitioner exhausted the departmental appeal (Rule 7(3)) and now challenges the rejection of the “Jungle” plots by writ. He contends that the Transit Rules form a complete code with statutory timelines, that undue delay by officials and repeated re-openings render the process invalid, and that State rules on private plantations prevail over the Forest Conservation Act (FCA). The respondents maintain that any land recorded as “Jungle” is forest land under Section 2 of the FCA and requires prior central approval; hence the Transit Rules cannot override the FCA.

¶60

7. The petitioner was initially directed by this Court to appeal the DFO’s order, which he did. His writ petition thus comes only after the departmental remedy was exhausted. In any event, there is no bar to a writ in the nature of certiorari once the statutory appeal is disposed, particularly when fundamental rights or core legal questions are involved. We proceed to examine the merits.

¶61

Page 8 of 12

¶62

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Nov-2025 12:04:23

¶63

8. Rule 7(8) of the Odisha Transit Rules provides that the entire joint‐verification and permit‐issuance process should be completed within fixed periods i.e. 60 days for JV from Tahasildar’s intimation and 30 days for the DFO’s test‐check. The petitioner argues that the DFO failed to abide by these timelines and effectively allowed the permit process to languish indefinitely, which, he says, should bar the Department from reopening the process.

¶64

9. While the State is bound to follow its own procedural timelines, the remedy for administrative lapse is normally to enforce compliance, not to treat the application as automatically granted. Critically, nothing in the Rules operates to deem a permit issued if the forest authorities exceed the 30-day test‐check period. On the contrary, the Rules contemplate that if discrepancies are found, the process restarts. Here, once the DFO and Range Officer did undertake a joint verification, albeit belatedly, and then conducted a test‐check in December 2011, the rules were engaged. Any delay or procedural defect can be remedied by mandamus to enforce the statutory clock, but cannot itself waive the substantive requirements of law. As explained below, even assuming arguendo that the initial delays were unlawful, the fundamental question is whether removal of the trees would contravene the Forest Conservation Act. We now turn to that central issue.

¶65

10. Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, mandates Central Government approval for any “non-forest purpose” on any “forest land”, regardless of ownership. The pivotal issue is whether the petitioner’s land is “forest” or not. The petitioner relies on the 2003

¶66

Page 9 of 12

¶67

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Nov-2025 12:04:23

¶68

Union government guidelines excluding private plantation from the FCA’s purview, and on his characterization of the land as private. However, Supreme Court jurisprudence squarely forecloses such a narrow view.

¶69

11. In Narinder Singh v. Divesh Bhutani¹ , the Supreme Court reiterated that the term “forest” in Section 2 must be understood in its ordinary dictionary sense that “forest land” includes any area recorded as forest in Government records, irrespective of ownership. The relevant excerpt are produced below:

¶70

“ The word “forest” must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. This description covers all statutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(i) of the Forest Conservation Act. The term “forest land”, occurring in Section 2, will not only include “forest” as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership. This is how it has to be understood for the purpose of Section 2 of the Act. The provisions enacted in the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 for the conservation of forests and the matters connected therewith must apply clearly to all forests so understood irrespective of the ownership or classification thereof.”

¶71

12. Here, the Tahasildar’s verification and the ROR entries show that some of the petitioner’s plots are recorded as “Jungle”. Under the above ruling, those plots indisputably qualify as forest land for Section 2: they fall within the category of areas recorded as forest. By contrast, the Aat‐kisam plots are not recorded as forest, and the authorities correctly issued transit permits for them. There is no real dispute on

¶72

12022 SCC OnLine SC 899.

¶73

Page 10 of 12

¶74

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Nov-2025 12:04:23

¶75

that portion, and the petition in effect challenges only the denial relating to the “Jungle” plots.

¶76

13. Hence, there is no merit in the petitioner’s claim to automatic entitlement under the Transit Rules. The authorities correctly differentiated between the plots: issuing permits for the Aat (nonforest) plots and withholding them for the Jungle plots. This distinction is fully borne out by law. To allow removal of the “Jungle” parcels would violate Section 2 of the FCA unless Central approval is obtained. The Transit Rules are subordinate state regulations that cannot nullify the FCA’s clear command.

¶77

14. The petitioner’s insistence that the Transit Rules are a self-contained code with a 30-day deeming provision finds no support in law. Nowhere do the Rules state that a permit must issue by lapse of time irrespective of underlying legal constraints. The schedule in Rule 7(8) only directs expeditious enquiry and communication of results. Delay alone does not invalidate the statutory framework. Here, the final JV report (February 2012) indeed recorded the “Jungle” plots, and the subsequent DFO order (31.03.2013) explicitly invoked the need for FCA approval on the ground that those plots are forest. The appellate authority correctly affirmed that view in the light of Section 2 and controlling Supreme Court orders.

¶78

V.

¶79

CONCLUSION:

¶80

15. In sum, the petition must fail on merits. On the lands officially classed as Jungle , Section 2(1) of the Forest Conservation Act applies. The petitioner’s request for a transit permit on 'Jungle' plots is untenable

¶81

Page 11 of 12

¶82

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 10-Nov-2025 12:04:23

¶83

without prior Central Government approval under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act. The Orissa Transit Rules cannot override this legal requirement. Although procedural delays occurred, they do not validate automatic permit issuance. Permits already granted for 'Aat' plots remain unaffected. The petitioner’s reliance on Supreme Court directions is misplaced, as those rulings reinforce, not relax, restrictions on forest land.

¶84

16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed .

¶85

17. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.

¶86

(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge

¶87

Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 7^th Nov., 2025

¶88

Page 12 of 12

Amritlal Saood v. Regnl.Chief Conserv

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amritlal Saood v. Regnl.Chief Conserv

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bijay Kumar Samal Vs the General Manager Uco Bank, West Bengal

Sadasiba Nayak Vs Chief Manager, Stressed Assets Recovery Branch, Bbsr

Bhikari Jena Vs State of Odisha

Binka S.C.Societies Vs Tahasildar, Binaka

Pronab Phukan Vs Union of India

Union of India Vs M/S.Kiocl Ltd.