S.T. Kharche, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner impugning the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nagpur, on 29th March, 1989, imposing fine of Rs. 45,800/- on the petitioner and directing the confiscation of the trees felled.
3. The petitioner had purchased the field in the year 1981 bearing Survey Nos. 75/1-G and 75/1-D admeasuring 6.31 hectares of Mouza Zilpi, Tahsil Hingna, District Nagpur, for tree farming. Some teak trees were already in the said land at the time of purchase, and in the year 1981-82, the petitioner planted 20,000 teak plants and bamboo trees in this field for tree farming. It is contended by the petitioner that some of the trees were required to be cut down for the purpose of thinning and there was no restriction whatsoever about the felling of the trees, which constitutes the damage to the person or property or for abetting any nuisance on one's own land. After the expiry of a period of 7 or 8 years, the tree plantations was being subjected to thinning operations by scientific system and the petitioner decided to eliminate 2003 teak trees out of approximately 1000 teak trees as they had the necessary effect of damaging and diminishing the growth, quality, value and utility of the remaining trees. Though the permission was not required as per law, by the abundant precaution, the petitioner had made an application to the Chief Conservator of Forest, in the first week of January, 1989. The Sub-Divisional Forest Officer inspected the field in question and submitted his report on 23rd February, 1989. As per his report, there was no objection for felling of the trees. On 29th March, 1989, the Sub-Divisional Officer had passed the order directing the seizure and confiscation of the trees and imposed a fine of Rs. 45,800/- on the petitioner for felling trees without permission. It is this order that has been challenged in the writ petition.
4. Mr. Naik, the learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the Sub-Divisional Officer has committed an error in directing the confiscation of the 2003 trees without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and he contended that because of it the proceedings stands vitiated. Mr. Naik further contended that the respondent was not having jurisdiction to impose fine of Rs. 45,800/- and the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.
5. Mr. Dhote, the learned A.G.P., does not dispute that the opportunity of hearing was not granted to the petitioner while passing the impugned order and, therefore, submitted that this Court need not observed anything on merits and remand the matter to the authority for fresh enquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the provisions of Maharashtra Felling of Trees (Regulation) Act, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
6. We have carefully considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel for the parties. At the outset, it may be stated that we are not examining the matter on merits relating to the impugned action of the respondent. Section 4 of the Act reads as under:
4. Any person who, without permission being granted or deemed to have been granted to fell any tree, fells any such tree or causes it to be felled, shall be liable to such penalty not exceeding one thousand rupees as the tree Officer empowered under Section 3 may, after holding an enquiry and giving such person an opportunity of being heard, deem fit to impose; and the Tree Officer may further order that any such tree to felled (which is not the property of Government) shall be forfeited to the State Government along with the tools, boats, vehicles or other conveyances used in felling and removing, any such tree.'
Plain reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that the authority is supposed to hold enquiry and give opportunity of being heard before imposing any penalty on the person, who is indulged in felling of trees in contravention of the provisions of the Act. In the present case, it is not disputed that such opportunity of hearing was not given to the petitioner which is violative of the principles of natural justice and contrary to the procedure provided under the Act and, therefore, we are satisfied that the impugned order deserves to be quashed and set aside and to remit the matter to the respondent-authority for fresh decision in accordance with law.
7. Therefore, we quash and set aside the impugned order and direct the respondents-authority to hold an enquiry afresh by giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and to decide the matter in accordance with law. The petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent No. 3-Sub-Divisional Officer on 10-11-2003 and filed her say in the matter. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.