# Bihari Lal v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 364
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-10
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 28236 of 2025
- **Bench:** Atul Sreedharan, Siddharth Nandan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bihari-lal-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54304
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

364 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

43. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Roshina T. v. Abdul Azeez K.T. and others reported in
(2019) 2 SCC 329 held that a regular civil suit is the appropriate remedy for the settlement of
disputes relating to property rights between private persons and the High Court cannot allow its
jurisdiction under the Constitution to be invoked for deciding disputes for which remedies under
the general law, civil or criminal, are available. Paragraph 17 of the said judgment is reproduced
herein below :

"17. In our opinion, the High Court, therefore, while so directing exceeded its
extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution. Indeed, the High Court
in granting such relief, had virtually converted the writ petition into a civil suit and itself to a civil
court. In our view, it was not permissible."

44. The petitioners' claim of title and possession over the land in question is highly disputed.
As per their own admission, the petitioners are no longer in possession of the land after the removal
of encroachments by the Nagar Panchayat, Belhara, District Barabanki on 19.06.2024 with the
assistance of the revenue and police authorities.

45. Thus, we are of the view that the order dated 06.08.2024 to the extent of the reasoning
given by respondent No.5, the Executive Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Belhara, District Barabanki
disputing the petitioners' title rights on the basis of Section 23 of the Act, 1950 is erroneous. At the
same time we are also of the view that the petitioners have failed to establish their claim of title and
possession for the last 74 years by any cogent and convincing evidence so as to warrant a finding in
their favour regarding their title and possessory rights of the petitioners over the land in question by
this court while exercising its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.

46. Since the issues raised in the writ petition involve disputed questions of fact, which cannot
be adjudicated in the present proceedings, the petitioners ayre required to avail the remedy under
civil law. However, it is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the
title to the subject land or the question of possession and the same are left open to be adjudicated in
appropriate proceedings before the competent civil court.

47. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed.

48. No order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 364
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATUL SREEDHARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.

Writ C No. 28236 of 2025
3 All. Bihari Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
365
Bihari Lal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to rejection of application seeking permission for felling of 10 teakwood trees on the ground
that dispute pertaining to the land was pending before the High Court and Civil Court and whether in absence
of any physical division of land permission could be granted for cutting trees standing over the plot. (Paras
10,11,12,13,14)

Headnotes
Uttar Pradesh Protection of Trees Act, 1976 - Ss. 4, 5 and 10 - Restriction on felling and removal
of trees - Any person entitled to fell a standing tree may make an application seeking permission
and the competent authority shall grant or refuse the permission within the prescribed period -
Permission shall not be refused without affording opportunity of hearing to the applicant - In
present case no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner prior to passing of the
impugned order. (Paras 15,16,17,18)
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - S. 207 - Mere pendency of appeal cannot be construed as a stay or an
interim order - Objection already stood rejected and there was no interim order operating in the
pending appeal - Pendency of appeal could not have been basis for rejection of claim of
petitioner. (Para 9)
Administrative Law - Impugned order has to justify itself on the basis of the reasoning given
therein - Affidavit also did not supplement the reasoning purportedly based on which impugned
order had been passed. (Para 11)
U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 - S. 34 - Proceedings initiated under Section 34 and pending in
appeal under S. 207 of the Code, 2006 are summary in nature and could not have been taken
into account to dispute title of petitioner particularly when there was no interim order in appeal.
(Para 12)
Uttar Pradesh Protection of Trees Act, 1976 - S. 5 - Competent authority may make further
enquiry if not satisfied with report made under S. 5(1) - Authority could have sought report on
physical partition as provided under S. 30(2) of the Code, 2006. (Para 18)
Held: Impugned order merely stated that permission was denied on account of pendency of proceedings
before the High Court as well as before the SDM, Tehsil Bhatpar Rani, District Deoria - no interim order was
operating in pending First Appeal under S. 207 of the Code, 2006 - objection already stood rejected and mere
pendency of appeal could not be construed as a stay or an interim order - writ petition filed by State in ceiling
proceedings was also dismissed and had attained finality - there was no pendency before the High Court as
stated in the impugned order.
Impugned order had to justify itself on the basis of reasoning given therein and affidavit also did not
supplement the reasoning purportedly based on which impugned order had been passed.
Proceedings initiated under S. 34 of the Act, 1901 and pending in appeal under S. 207 of the Code, 2006 were
summary in nature and could not have been taken into account to dispute title of petitioner particularly when
there was no interim order in appeal.
S. 5 of the Act, 1976 demonstrates that any person entitled to fell a standing tree may make an application
seeking permission and officer concerned shall forward application along with report to competent authority -
in present case report had already been forwarded by Sub Divisional Forest Officer, Section Incharge Bankata,
Range Bhatni.
Competent authority could have made further enquiry if not satisfied with report under S. 5(1) of the Act,
1976 - however permission could not be refused without affording opportunity of hearing to applicant - no
opportunity of hearing was given to petitioner prior to passing impugned order.
Impugned order dated 31.05.2025 could not be sustained in the eyes of law and was set aside - petitioner
granted liberty to approach concerned authority with fresh application demonstrating that plot over which
trees are standing is in his exclusive possession and also giving specific particulars pertaining to pendency of
366 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
cases and whether there is any interim order operating in pending proceedings - competent authority directed
to proceed to decide application in accordance with law and giving due consideration to recommendation
dated 15.02.2025 - respondent no.4 cautioned that in future he must take steps which are in consonance with
provisions of law. (Paras 9,11,12,13,15,16,17,18,19,20,21) (E-7)

Case Law Cited
NIL

List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Protection of Trees Act, 1976; U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901; U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; Ceiling
Act

List of Keywords
permission for felling of trees; pending proceedings; no interim order; summary proceeding; minjumla plot;
physical partition; exclusive possession; opportunity of hearing; further enquiry; recommendation report;
demarcation; rejection of application

Case Arising From
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ C no. 28236 of 2025 arising from order dated 31.05.2025 passed by
respondent no.4 rejecting online application seeking permission for felling of 10 teakwood trees.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner:
Sri Amit Kumar Singh
Advs. for the Respondents:
Ms. Kritika Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel

(Delivered by Hon'ble 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.
3 All. Bihari Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
367

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 Appeal under Section 207 of the Code, 2006; and the objection of the
said Jata Shanker Singh already stood rejected and accordingly, mere pendency of the appeal
cannot be construed as a stay or an interim order, as such, the same could not have been the basis
for the rejection of the claim of the petitioner. In the affidavit filed before us, there is no mention of
any proceedings pending before the High Court; but however as far as the writ petition filed by the
State in proceedings declaring some surplus land from Gata No. 17 Mi, was concerned, the same
has admittedly been dismissed and no further challenge was made to the decision of the High
Court; and accordingly, there is no pendency as stated in the impugned order, before the High
Court.

10. The question which arises before us is, in case the property has not been physically
partitioned, is it within the domain of the authority concerned to reject the application of the
petitioner for cutting certain number of trees, over his plot. Though the said reasoning is not born
out from the impugned order, but however an effort was made by the learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel to state that on account of the non-partition of the plot in question, the permission
was rejected. The same stand has been reiterated by the respondent no.4, who is present before the
Court.
368 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

11. It is no longer res integra that the impugned order has to justify itself on the basis of the
reasoning given therein and here is a case where the affidavit also does not supplement the
reasoning purportedly based on which the impugned order has been passed.

12. However, in the interest of justice, we proceed to examine the said issue and we find that
firstly, since the proceedings which were initiated under Section 34 of the Act, 1901 and said to be
pending in appeal under Section 207 of the Code, 2006 are summary in nature and could not have
been taken into account to dispute the title of the petitioner, and moreso ever when there was no
interim order in the appeal, the impugned order could not have been passed, merely on the basis of
the pendency of the appeal.

13. As far as the reasoning given with respect to the pendency of the proceedings before the
High Court, the same is absolutely against the evidence of record, since the writ petition filed by
the State in the ceiling proceedings was also dismissed and has attained finality.

14. Now coming to the last question that in absence of any physical division of land whether a
permission can be granted or not.

15. We are constrained to observe that the petitioner may have been required to demonstrate
that in case he is seeking permission with respect to a plot which is a minjumla plot, he is in
possession over the said area of land on which the trees are planted and for the same he is seeking a
permission under the relevant provisions of the Act, for cutting down the said trees. The restrictions
on felling and removal of trees have been outlined in Section 4 of the Uttar Pradesh Protection of
Trees Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act, 1976') and the procedure for permission to fell
or remove trees has been provided under Section 5 of the Act, 1976; and thereafter, under Section
10 of the Act, 1976 penalty for felling or removal of trees in contravention of Section 4 has been
prescribed, which is punishable with imprisonment, which may extend to six months or with fine,
which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both. For ready reference, Sections 4, 5 and 10 of
the Act, 1976, are reproduced below:

"4. Restriction on felling and removal of trees - Except as provided in this Act or the
rules made thereunder, no person shall-

(a) fell any tree standing on any land, whether included in a holding or not;

(b) cut, remove or otherwise dispose of any tree other than a tree which is completely
dead and has fallen without the aid of human agency on any such land.

5. Procedure for permission to fell remove trees - (1) Any person entitled to fell a
standing tree or to cut, remove or otherwise dispose of a fallen tree, may make an application to
such officer in such form as may be notified by the State Government, for permission to fell such
standing tree or to cut, remove or otherwise dispose of such fallen tree and the officer to whom
such application is made, shall, within twenty days after making such enquiry as he thinks fit,
forward the application along with his report to the competent authority.
3 All. Bihari Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
369

(2) The competent authority shall, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the
report under sub-section (1), grant or refuse the permission applied for;

Provided that the competent authority may, if he is not satisfied with the report made
under sub-section (1), make such further enquiry as he thinks fit:

Provided further that such permission shall not be refused without affording the
opportunity of hearing to the applicant:

Provided also that such permission shall not be refused if the tree constitutes danger to
person or property:

Provided further that except in such areas as may be notified by the State Government in
this behalf, such permission shall not be required for felling of any tree with a view to
appropriating the wood or leaves thereof for bona fide use for purposes of fuel, fodder,
agricultural implements or other domestic use:

Provided also that such immediate steps as are necessary to remove any obstruction or
nuisance or to prevent any danger may be taken without such permission.

(3) Where the competent authority fails to take any decision under sub-section (2) within
the time specified therefor, it shall be deemed that the permission applied for, has been granted.

(4) Every permission granted under this Act shall be subject to such conditions, including
taking of security for ensuring regeneration of the area and replanting of trees or otherwise, as
may be specified from time to time by the State Government by notification.

10. Penalty for felling or removal or trees in contravention of Section 4 - Whoever fells
or causes to be felled any standing tree, or cuts, removes or otherwise disposes of any fallen tree,
in contravention of the provisions of section 4, or contravenes any condition of any permission
granted under this Act, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to six months or
with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or with both."

16. A perusal of Section 5 demonstrates that any person entitled to fell a standing tree or to
cut, remove or otherwise dispose of a fallen tree, may make an application to such officer under the
prescribed format seeking permission to fell such standing tree and the officer to whom such
application is made, shall, within 20 days after making such enquiry as he thinks fit, forward the
application along with the report to the competent authority.

17. In the facts of the present case, we find that such a report was already forwarded by the
Sub Divisional Forest Officer, Section Incharge Bankata, Range Bhatni and thereafter, the
competent authority was required to take a decision within 15 days from the date of the receipt of
the report.
370 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

18. It is also open to the competent authority that in case he is not satisfied with the report
made under Section 5 (1) of the Code, 2006, he may make further enquiry. However, the provision
to Section 5 (2) of the Act, 1976 clearly provides that permission shall not be refused without
affording the opportunity of hearing to the applicant. In the present case, we find that no
opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner prior to passing of the impugned order. However,
he could have made a further enquiry, seeking report on physical partition, as provided under
Section 30(2) of the Code, 2006.

19. In view of the aforesaid, we find that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eyes
of law and accordingly, the impugned order dated 31.05.2025 passed by the respondent no.4 is set aside. The
petitioner will be at liberty to approach the concerned authority with a fresh application, demonstrating particularly,
that the plot over which trees are standing is in his exclusive possession and also giving specific particulars
pertaining to the pendency of the cases with respect to the plots in question and whether there is any interim order
operating in the said pending proceedings i.e. demonstrating that there is no legal impediment.

20. In case, there is no interim order in the pending proceedings for mutation, which otherwise is in the nature
of a summary proceeding also, the competent authority shall proceed to decide the application. In case, the State
has a claim over any part of the land, which is a part of Gata No. 17 Mi, they shall proceed to get the demarcation
done at their own behest, within a period of four weeks from the date of the application and thereafter, within a
period of two weeks take a decision on the application made by the petitioner regarding permission as
contemplated under the Act, 1976; giving due consideration to the recommendation dated 15.02.2025 (Annexure4).

21. Before parting with the aforesaid case, we find that the conduct and approach of the respondent no. 4
while passing the impugned order, was not in consonance with law and even otherwise, he has tried to carve out a
new case before this Court, that the rejection was on account of non-partition of minjumla plot under Section 30
sub clause (2) of the Code, 2006. Since, we do not intend to pass an order which may otherwise infringe the right
of the State, we refrain ourselves from passing any further order vis-a-vis the respondent no.4 but he is cautioned
that in future he must take steps which are in consonance with the provisions of the law.

22. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands allowed.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 370
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATUL SREEDHARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.

Writ C No. 34251 of 2025

M/s Satish Chandra Dixit ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents