|
By Ranjan K Panda A divisional forest officer in Orissa proves that the forest bureaucracy considers itself above the law and, on a whim, can deprive people of rights over their resources. A case in Sambalpur district, where a man had to wait two years for permission to cut and sell some trees on his land, shows how
Bijaya Chandra Panda, an oustee of the Hirakud dam project, wanted to cut some trees on his rayati land to help meet his children’s education expenses. He was entitled to do so under the Orissa Timber and OFPT Rules 1980 (commonly known as the TT Rules). But the divisional forest officer (DFO) of Sambalpur South Division had other views. He decided not to grant permission for the trees to be cut, following which Panda, an educated and determined man, decided to fight for his rights. Thus began an interesting battle that culminated, after 300 petitions and 20 applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, in Panda’s victory. But only after the DFO was directed by the lokpal to toe the line. The full story “We were displaced by the Hirakud dam and the compensation we were offered was paltry. Ours was an educated family and we wanted to fight for appropriate compensation. But the government of Orissa made a faulty law in 1948, a new Act where it was said that on the calculated compensation no landowner could go directly to the high court,” says Panda, who belongs to the family of the late Prasanna Panda, a veteran communist leader and champion of displaced people who fought legal and political battles for compensation for thousands of dam oustees, right until the time of his death. From the compensation they got, Panda’s family bought land in Birsinghgarh village, in Jujumura block, from the Hirakud land office which was established as a unit under the revenue divisional commissioner to provide land to the oustees. “The land was de-reserved for this purpose by the government at that time, and was allocated to us as agricultural land,” he says. Panda inherited around 20 acres of land in the village and, in 2005, when he needed money for his children’s education, he decided to fell the trees on half his land and sell them. He also wanted to convert the land to agricultural fields in order to grow cash crops. So, under Section 7 of the TT Rules, Panda approached the DFO Sambalpur South Division seeking permission to cut the trees on his land and sell them. The application was made on December 23, 2005. “The DFO, Subash Chandra Sahu, first tried to dissuade me from filing the application and advised me to sell (the trees) to smugglers instead,” says Panda. “When I asked him how this would benefit me, the DFO said departmental procedures would take too long; selling to smugglers could be done in very little time. It would also fetch more money,” he adds. Obviously, the DFO refutes this charge. Later, however, his actions (rather, inaction for around two years) on the application clearly showed a hidden agenda. “Perhaps the DFO thought I would be cowed by his tactics. But I kept following up and decided to do some Gandhigiri. I started the battle with letters,” Panda says. “I went to the office repeatedly to enquire about my application. I wrote to him asking why he was not writing to the tehsildar for a joint verification report, which is mandatory under the law. However, the DFO chose to stay silent. I then started filing applications under RTI to get the latest position. I wrote to higher officials like the conservator of forests, district collector, RDC, even the chief minister, and finally the lokpal,” he says. Initially, the DFO did write back saying it was not possible to grant Panda permission as the case came under the Private Forest Preservation Act 1947 (Rules 1963) -- an Act that was repealed over three decades ago! Panda then wrote, with copies of this letter, to the DFO’s seniors. However, to his surprise, nothing happened. Meanwhile, the DFO kept giving arbitrary reasons for not allowing Panda the right to cut and sell the trees on his land. He questioned the type of land Panda had, his ownership over it, etc, all of which was clearly not under his jurisdiction and regarding which he had already been directed by the RDC. Each time Panda wrote a petition, the DFO would reply quoting some arbitrary clause. Panda even wrote to the chief minister, following which an inquiry was ordered. Still nothing happened. Finally, in August, 2007, Panda wrote to the lokpal and stepped up his efforts to petition others. His letters are testimony to the plight of the common man in such circumstances, and the high-handedness of officials. Finally, a harassed Panda received a positive verdict from the lokpal, Justice S C Mohapatra, on January 24, 2008, two years after his first attempts and only after he had already sold half his land and incurred debts of up to Rs 264,000 for his children’s education. The judgment not only orders the DFO to take immediate steps, but also warns forest department officials that an inference of abuse of position to cause undue harm or hardship to people could be drawn if a complaint was filed regarding delays in the issue of a timber transit permit that is required under the rules. Meanwhile, while the lokpal petition was being moved, the DFO tried one final trick. He asked Panda to give it in writing that he would sell the produce to the Orissa Forest Development Corporation (OFDC) depot at Sambalpur. “I initially refused because that would mean a loss for me. However, I was also desperate by then and so agreed to his condition,” says Panda. But the OFDC did not provide a price list until the end, and the DFO had to show the lokpal that he had taken appropriate action. And so, finally, he was forced to allow the cutting of the trees as well as give Panda permission to sell them to a private depot of his choice. Panda was asked by the DFO to finish all the necessary formalities under the TT Rules. He has since cut the trees and made hammer markings, timber markings, etc, all of which are required under the rules. However, the trees, worth around Rs 7 lakh, are still lying on his land because the DFO’s office has yet to give final permission for their removal! What should have taken 90 days, according to the rules, took two years and four months. When asked, the DFO says: “I have complied with the rules and have already granted permission.” Isn’t it time the forest department, which is seeking more power and weapons to guard the forests, does a bit of introspection? (Ranjan K Panda is an Orissa-based researcher and writer) InfoChange News & Features, June 2008
|
