( 1 ) THE appellant (here in after called, the plaintiff) filed suit being O. S. No. 72 of 1988 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, warangal, for recovery of an amount of rs. 20,295/- (Rupees twenty thousand two hundred and ninety five only) with interest by declaring that the search, seizure and collection of compounding fee of rs. 20,000. 00 (Rupees twenty thousand only)is illegal. In his plaint, he alleged that he purchased teak wood in two lots, got it sawn into sizes at two different saw mills and as he could not get permit, kept the cut teak wood at Ladella village with his cousin till 10-2-1988. When he was transporting the teak, the forest officials stopped the bullock carts, registered a case being p. O. R. No. 79/b/87-88 W/n, dated 20-2-1988, and imposed compounding fee. As he was threatened with arrest, he paid the compounding fee. He alleged that the seizure and collection of compounding fee is illegal and therefore, he is entitled to such declaration and refund.

( 2 ) THE respondents (hereinafter called, the defendants) denied the allegations and asserted that unless and until a transit permit is obtained under Andhra Pradesh Forest produce Transit Rules, 1970 (Transit Rules, for brevjty), the timber cannot be transported and that the plaintiff paid the compounding fee on his own volition.

( 3 ) BASED on the rival pleadings, the trial Court framed four issues. The plaintiff examined P. Ws. 1 to 3 and marked Exs. Al to A6, whereas defendants examined d. W. I and marked Exs. Bl to B7. After considering the evidence and the relevant provisions of Transit Rules, the trial Court came to the conclusion that when a person transports sawn teak wood, no transit permit is required and therefore, the seizure and collection of compounding fee is illegal. Therefore, the trial Court decreed the suit. The appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court, aggrieved by which, the present second appeal is filed.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant submits that when sawn teak wood is transported within the State, no transit permit is required and therefore, even if the petitioner was transporting the teak wood without permit, the second respondent could not have seized the teak and could not have collected the compounding fee. According to the learned Counsel, the action of the second respondent in imposing compounding fee is ex facie illegal and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to declaration of title and refund of the amount, which he paid under coercion. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader relies upon Rules 3 and 4 of the Transit rules and submits that whether or not the timber is sawn into sizes, as and when the same is moved within the State or into the State, the same has to be accompanied by a permit issued under Rule 5 of the transit Rules and therefore, the seizure of the wood is not illegal. Secondly, he submits that imposition of Rs. 20,000/- as compounding fee is legal and there is no frivolous attitude on the part of the second respondent.

( 5 ) THE plaintiff admitted that he has been transporting the timber sawn into sizes without a permit. Indeed in the plaint itself, it was averred that as he could not get transit permit, he stored the sawn teak wood at the house of his cousin at Ladella village. The question, therefore, is whether a permit is required for moving the timber from one place to another ?

( 6 ) THE term forest produce is defined in Section 2 (g) of the Andhra Pradesh Forest act, 1967 (Forest Act, for brevity) as under. " (g) forest produce includes (1) The following whether found in, or brought from a forest or not, that is to say timber, bamboos, charcoal, rubber, cacutchour, catechu, wood-oil, resin, natural varnish bark, lac, mahua flowers, mahua seeds, myrobalans, tumki leaves, rousa grass, rauwolfia serpentina, adda leaves; (2) The following when found in, or brought from a forest, that is to say (i) tress, such leaves, flowers and fruits a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document