The central legal point established is the need to accurately determine the classification of land as forest and to ensure compliance with the Forest Conservation Act and Supreme Court orders regarding felling of trees.

Dhirendra Mishra, J. :-

1. Respondent No. I and others namely Smt. Laxmi W/o Late Boti, Hapu S/o Podiya, Hirma S/o Podiya, Bachhu S/o Boti and Laxman S/o Lingu claiming themselves to be the owners of Khasra No.264/1 and 325/1, area 132/5 I acres, moved an application on 25.6.2002 under Sections 240, 179(1) and 241 (3) of the Chhattisgarh Land Revenue Code, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) before the Collector, Dantewada for permission of felling timber trees standing over their land on the ground that all the marked trees had dried and become hollow, he is getting notices from the income tax department for payment of tax and after felling the trees he intends to divert the land into agriculture land after digging bore well, purchasing tractor, erecting barbed wire fencing. It was stated that the land in question is not forest land. The proceedings on his earlier application for permission were dropped in view of ban on felling trees by Hon’ble the Supreme Court. However, with the permission of the Govt. of India and as per direction of the Central Empowered Committee, the Govt. of Chhattisgarh has since revoked the ban on felling trees in Bastar division, his application may be considered and allowed.

2. The applicant filed another application dated 6.1.2003 stating therein that he does not belong to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe and therefore, no permission as envisaged under Section 240 of the Code is required. No government forest or non-government forest is situated near his land, the land in question does' not come within the definition of forest as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

3. The Collector after registering the application of respondent No. 1/applicant forwarded the same vide his order dated 31.12.2002 to the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue); Dantewada for conducting enquiry. Report dated 20.12.2002 of the Divisional Forest Officer, Dantewada was also annexed along with the applications for his comments.

4. The S.D.O. Dantewada, after receiving the above applications directed the Naib Tehsildar, Kuakonda to conduct enquiry as per Sections 240 & 241 of the Code and as per directions issued by the State in this regard and submit his report. The Naib Tehsildar during enquiry ordered that the land in question bearing Kbasra Nos. 264/1 & 325/1 area 132.51 acres, be surveyed on the basis of map available with the Panchayat and old record. The enquiry was taken up on the spot on 13.3.2003 and it was discovered that on comparison, the old map produced by respondent No. 1/applicant and the map of changed Khasra No. as per new settlement record, did not correspond partially. The enquiry was again taken up on the soot on 4.5.2003 and spot inspection report was prepared. The statements of the applicant and co-owners were recorded. Representation from the Forest Conservation Committee could not be procured as the forest committee was not constituted for the village. Report of Annexure R-1/4 was prepared in which permission for felling 445 trees was recommended and the same was forwarded to the Collector through S.D.O. on 13.5.2003. The S.D.O. while forwarding the inspection report vide his order dated 20.5.2003 did not agree with the recommendation of the Tehsildar on the ground that the number of trees recommended for felling is excessive and recommended that the applicant should be granted permission to cut such number of trees which is necessary for meeting his expenditure. However, the Collector vide his order dated 18.6.2003 of Annexure P/4 rejected the application of respondent No. 1/applicant and directed the Officer In-Charge, Land Record Section, Dantewada to register the case and find out the reasons for the discrepancies existing in the old record and the present record prepared during settlement.

5. Respondent No. 1/applicant being aggrieved by the order of Annexure P/4, preferred an appeal before the Board of Revenue. Bilaspur, bearing Appeal No. 17A-63/2002-2003, which was dismiss