Land classified as 'Jungle' is deemed forest land under the Forest Conservation Act, requiring Central Government approval for timber felling, which the Transit Rules cannot override.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.

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.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

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

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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.

(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 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”.

(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.

(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.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

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

(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 forwar