1. Confiscation of sandalwood trees found on private lands — dispute over whether stacking dried trees constitutes a forest offence under the Forest Act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 462
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S. BOPANNA, SANJAY KUMAR, JJ.
The Divisional Forest Officer, Munnar, Kerala and Another – Appellants
Versus
P.J. Antony – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 9751-9752 of 2011
Decided On : 14-05-2024
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Gaurav Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Mr. K.Parameshwar, AOR Mr. Saiby Jose Kidangoor, Adv. Ms. Kanti, Adv. Mr. Chinmay Kalgaonkar, Adv. Ms. Raji Gururaj, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Gaurav Aggarwal, Sr. Adv. Mr. K.Parameshwar, AOR Mr. Saiby Jose Kidangoor, Adv. Ms. Kanti, Adv. Mr. Chinmay Kalgaonkar, Adv. Ms. Raji Gururaj, Adv.
The main legal point established is that the movement of sandalwood did not constitute a 'forest offence' under the Forest Act, and the Forest Department failed to prove ownership of the sandalwood.
Headnote:
confiscation - sandalwood - Kerala Forest Act, 1961 (Section 61A) - Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986 - Kerala Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1975 - G.O. (MS) No. 126/73/AD - the court set aside the confiscation order as there was no evidence of a 'forest offence' and the movement of sandalwood did not constitute a 'forest offence' under the Forest Act. The court also found that the Forest Department failed to prove ownership of the sandalwood and that the presumption under Section 69 of the Forest Act was adequately disproved.
Fact of the Case:
The Forest Department confiscated sandalwood trees from the lands of P.J. Antony and Cheriyan Kuruvila. The High Court set aside the confiscation order, finding no evidence of a 'forest offence' and rejecting the Department's claim of a 'forest offence' under the Forest Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence of a 'forest offence' and that the movement of sandalwood did not constitute a 'forest offence' under the Forest Act. The court also found that the Forest Department failed to prove ownership of the sandalwood and that the presumption under Section 69 of the Forest Act was adequately disproved.
Issues: 1. Whether a 'forest offence' was committed by the respondents. 2. Proof of ownership of the sandalwood by the Forest Department.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that there was no evidence of a 'forest offence' and that the movement of sandalwood did not constitute a 'forest offence' under the Forest Act. The court also found that the Forest Department failed to prove ownership of the sandalwood and that the presumption under Section 69 of the Forest Act was adequately disproved.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeals, set aside the confiscation order, and directed the Forest Department to proceed in accordance with the Government's scheme within three months.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the movement and stacking of sandalwood trees on private land constitutes a forest offence justifying confiscation under the Forest Act. (Para 6 , 11 )
3. Confiscation order based on speculation; revenue records prove ownership; violation of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act does not constitute a forest offence under the Forest Act. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 )
4. Confiscation under the Forest Act requires a forest offence; a violation of a separate tree preservation act does not satisfy this requirement. (Para 10 )
5. Appeals dismissed — confiscation order set aside — Forest Department directed to proceed according to the government scheme. (Para 14 )
6. Does a violation of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act constitute a forest offence under the Forest Act?
No. A forest offence is defined as an offence punishable under the Forest Act or any rule made thereunder. A violation of the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act regarding the movement of trees does not constitute an offence under the Forest Act. (Para 6 , 10 )
7. What is the scope of the presumption under Section 69 of the Forest Act?
Section 69 provides that when a question arises as to whether forest produce is the property of the Central or State Government, it shall be presumed to be so until the contrary is proved. It does not create a presumption regarding the commission of a forest offence. (Para 6 , 11 )
8. What is the legal standard for the expression reason to believe in seizure and confiscation proceedings?
The formation of an opinion based on reason to believe must be based on material available on the record. It cannot be arbitrary, capricious, whimsical, or based on speculative surmises. (Para 12 )
1. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 13.08.2010 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in W.P. (C) Nos. 18493 and 19478 of 2006. Thereby, the High Court allowed the writ petitions and set aside the order of confiscation of sandalwood dated 23.02.2004, which had been confirmed by the learned District Judge, Thodupuzha, in C.M.A. No. 39 of 2004. In consequence, the Forest Department of the State was directed to proceed on the basis of the application made by the writ petitioners in accordance with Government Order dated 03.04.1973. Aggrieved by this judgment and the directions therein, the State of Kerala and its Divisional Forest Officer, Munnar, filed these appeals.
2. P.J. Antony and Cheriyan Kuruvila, the respondents in the present appeals, were the petitioners in W.P. (C) Nos. 18493 and 19478 of 2006 respectively before the High Court. P.J. Antony claimed ownership and possession over 4.70 hectares of land in Survey Nos. 86/3 and 86/4 of Marayoor Village while Cheriyan Kuruvila claimed title and possession over an extent of 1.09 hectares in Survey No. 86/5 of Marayoor Village. P.J. Antony submitted application dated 13.12.2000 to the Tahsildar, Devikulam, for issuance of a certificate for handing over the dried and fallen sandalwood trees in his land to the Forest Department. A similar application was also filed by Cheriyan Kuruvila. These applications were made in accordance with the scheme envisaged under G.O. (MS) No. 126/773/AD, Agriculture (Forest) Department, dated 03.04.1973, which empowered the Forest Department to auction sandalwood trees grown on private lands and pay 70% of the sale proceeds to the landowners leaving the remaining 30% with the Department.
3. Thereupon, the Taluk Surveyor inspected the lands on 22.01.2001 and submitted a report, confirming that there were sandalwood trees fallen and lying in the said lands. He also prepared rough sketches of the topography of the lands in question, indicating therein the number and the location of the sandalwood trees found by him. In Survey No. 86/3, he confirmed that 16 sandalwood trees were lying dried and fallen, while in Survey No. 86/4, there were 34 such trees. In all, 50 sandalwood trees were stated to have been found in P.J. Antony’s land, dried and fallen. As regards Survey No. 86/5, pertaining to Cheriyan Kuruvila, the Taluk Surveyor confirmed that there were 26 sandalwood trees lying dried and fallen therein. The location of these trees was also indicated in the rough sketch. Earlier thereto, the Village Officer inspected the lands on 10.01.2001 and he prepared a tabular statement indicating the details of the sandalwood found, including the dimensions thereof. The Tahsildar, Devikulam, addressed letter dated 29.01.2001 to the Village Officer, Marayoor, in the context of the applications submitted, referring to the Village Officer’s Report dated 10.01.2001 and the Taluk Surveyor’s Report dated 23.01.2001, and directed that necessary Village Certificates could be legally issued in relation to the 50 sandalwood trees found in a dried and fallen condition in the residential property comprised in old Survey No. 30/1. A similar order was passed in relation to the application of Cheriyan Kuruvila. Thereupon, Certificate dated 20.03.2001 was issued by the Village Officer, Marayoor, noting that the lands of P.J. Antony in Survey Nos. 86/3 and 86/4 fall in old Survey No. 30/1 and that 50 sandalwood trees were found in a dried and fallen condition therein and certified that necessary steps could be taken for conducting an auction in relation to those trees. He also confirmed therein that the certificate was issued for the purpose of producing the same before the Range Officer, Marayoor Forest. A similar certificate was issued in relation to the 26 sandalwood trees, lying dried and fallen in the land of Cheriyan Kuruvila in Survey No. 86/5 of Marayoor Village.
4. Thereupon, P.J. Antony and Cheriyan Kuruvila submitted a joint application on 25.03
