Tree felling permission cannot be refused merely on pendency of land disputes without interim order or opportunity of hearing; competent authority must follow Section 5 procedure, verify possession, consider recommendations.

JUDGMENT :

Siddharth Nandan, J.

1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Kritika Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. In pursuance of the order dated 23.02.2026, Sri Kasarla Raju, Divisional Director Social Forestry Division, Deoria is present.

2. Present petition has been filed seeking issuance of writ of certiorari, quashing the order dated 31.05.2025 passed by the respondent no.4, by way of which his online application seeking permission for felling of 10 teakwood trees, has been denied in spite of the recommendation by the Sub Divisional Forest Officer, Section Incharge Bankata, Range Bhatni.

3. The brief conspectus of facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the property belongs to one Sharda Investment Company Ltd., Calcutta and the petitioner is the power of attorney holder of the company. He had moved an online application dated 13.02.2025 before the Sub Divisional Forest Officer, Section Incharge Bankata, Range Bhatni seeking permission to cut 10 teakwood trees and in pursuance whereof, a report dated 15.02.2025 was submitted, which has been annexed as annexure-4 to the affidavit filed along with the aforesaid writ petition.

4. A perusal of the aforesaid report clearly states that the applicant's land has 10 standing teakwood trees, for which he has made an application, which was also verified on the spot by the concerned authority and thereafter, a recommendation was made to the Regional Forest Officer, Bhatni Range.

5. However, vide impugned order, the application of the petitioner was rejected on the premise that the dispute pertaining to the land is pending before the High Court and Civil Court, Tehsil Bhatpar Rani, District Deoria. 6. The respondent no.4 has filed his personal affidavit to contend that an objection was filed by one Sri Jata Shanker Singh in the mutation proceedings initiated by the petitioner, which was rejected vide order dated 29.12.2023 passed by Tehsildar Judicial, Bhatpar Rani in Case No. T2015052005000002 filed under Section 34 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1901). He has further contended that the said Jata Shanker Singh has filed an appeal under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the Code, 2006). However, he has not disputed the fact that there is no interim order in the aforesaid appeal, which is pending, as on date.

7. He has further contended that the land in question was declared surplus vide order dated 17.02.1994 passed under Section 10 (2) of the Ceiling Act in Case No. 5/92; however, in an appeal, the order dated 17.02.1994 was set aside, vide order dated 24.05.1995. The writ petition, filed against the order dated 24.05.1995, has also been dismissed and has attained finality.

8. He has further contended that since Gata No. 17 Mi/10 Acres is a minjumla plot and therefore, he was not in a position to ascertain as to whether the trees in question are located over the area of Gata No. 17Mi, which is being claimed by the petitioner. However, this contention is not part of reasoning in the impugned order and is being supplemented, by way of an old argument.

9. Primarily, we find that the impugned order merely states that the permission is denied on account of the fact that certain proceedings are pending before the High Court as well as before the SDM, Tehsil Bhatpar Rani, District Deoria; but as stated hereinabove that no interim order was operating in the pending First