The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO. 15474 OF 2024 Ramesh Kumar Martha …. Petitioner Miss Deepali Mahapatra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and another …. Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Swayambhu Mishra, Additional Standing Counsel CORAM: JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 07.10.2024 6. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. The Petitioner in this writ petition seeks for a direction to the Divisional Forest Officer, Khurda Forest Division, Khurda-Opposite Party No.2 to grant T.T. Permit in his favour to remove the trees from Plot No.265 to an extent of Ac.2.010 decimals under Khata No.109/233 and Plot No.266 to an extent of Ac.0.610 decimals under Khata No.109/234 situated in mouza Arang under Banapur Tahasil in the district of Khurda (for short ‘the case land’). 3. Miss Mahapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that pursuant to Memo No.140 dated 7th March, 2024 (Annexure-7), the Petitioner was permitted to fell the trees standing over the case land. Accordingly, the Petitioner cut the trees, which are lying over the case land. Instead of issuing T.T. Permit as per Rule 7 of the Odisha Timber and other Forest Page 1 of 5 // 2 // Produce Transit Rules, 1980 (short ‘the Rules’), the Divisional Forest Officer, Khurda Forest Division, Khurda passed order dated 5th June, 2024 (Annexure-8) directing the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar for proper investigation and find out the actual owner of the aforesaid case land. It was further directed that the forest produce, which are already cut down being the perishable articles, shall be handed over to the Odisha Forest Development Corporation Ltd. on usual rate and the sale proceeds shall be deposited in the suspense account of the Division till the actual owner of the case land is ascertained. 4. This Court while issuing notice in the matter vide order dated 3rd July, 2024 in I.A. No. 8314 of 2024 directed as under: “7. In that view of the matter, this Court, as an interim measure, stays operation of the Letter No.183 dated 5th June, 2024 (Annexure-8) issued by Divisional Forest Officer, Khurda Forest Division, Khurda-Opposite Party No.2 till the next date. It is made clear that the Petitioner shall not for stay of 8. claim any compensation/equity operation of this order.” 5. Miss Mahapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that felled trees are lying in the field. Referring to the counter affidavit filed by Opposite Parties, Miss Mahapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that it is the admitted case of the parties that in C.S. No.210/2014/40 of 2010 ex parte decree declaring the right, title and interest of Satyanarayan Das (vendor of the Petitioner) has been declared and it has also been declared that Rama Mata is not the wife of Bhimram Das, who Page 2 of 5 // 3 // is the father of Satyanarayan Das. She, therefore, submits that there being clear finding of the Civil Court with regard to title of the case land, there is no difficulty on the part of Divisional Forest Officer, Khurda Forest Division to issue T.T. Permit in favour of the Petitioner in respect of felled trees, who has purchased the case land and mutated the same in his name. 6. Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel vehemently objects to the same. It is his submission that Rama Mata had filed an application to fell and remove the trees standing over the case land. Said application was allowed. Assailing the same, the vendor of the Petitioner, namely, Satyanarayan Das, had filed W.P.(C) No. 14408 of 2013. This Court while entertaining the writ petition vide order dated 23rd July, 2013 directed the parties to maintain status over the suit property. Said writ petition was disposed of on 3rd August, 2022. During continuance of the order of status quo, the Petitioner applied to fell the trees over the case land and to remove the same. Said application was allowed vide order under Annexure-7. Subsequently, realizing that during continuance of the order of status quo, the order permitting the Petitioner to fell trees has been passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Khurda Forest Division and ownership of the case land is in cloud, the impugned order has been passed. It is his submission that during continuance of the order of status quo passed by this Court, the case land has been sold by Satyanarayan Das in favour of the Petitioner. Thus, there is no illegality in passing the impugned order. Said fact was Page 3 of 5 // 4 // deliberately suppressed by the Petitioner before this Court in the present writ petition. Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed for suppression of material facts. 6.1 Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel further submits that when the Petitioner suppressing the material facts obtained the felling order, he should not have rewarded for his own wrong. 7. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that during continuance of the order of status quo, the case land was sold to the Petitioner by Satyanarayan Das. But there is no material to show that the Petitioner had any knowledge about the same. From the counter affidavit, it appears that right, title and interest in respect of the case land has been declared in the name of vendor of the Petitioner. It also appears from the case record that after purchase, the Petitioner had mutated the case land in his name. As such, the sale deed might be a voidable one, as it was executed during continuance of the order of status quo, but the validity of the sale deed has not yet been questioned. In that view of the matter, it can no more be said at this stage that ownership of the case land is in cloud. Since the order under Annexure-6 permitting the Petitioner to fell trees over the case land has not yet been recalled and the same is still in force, there is no difficulty in issuing T.T. Permit to the Petitioner remove the trees in respect of the case land under Rule 7 of the Rules. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order under Anenxure-8 is set aside and the Divisional Forest Officer, Khurda Forest Page 4 of 5 // 5 // Division, Khurda-Opposite Party No.2 is directed to consider the application filed by the Petitioner for grant of T.T. Permit to remove the trees over the case land keeping in mind the observation made herein above within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. bks (K.R. Mohapatra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BIJAY KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 08-Oct-2024 11:45:40 Page 5 of 5