Transportation of timber from private land, including raiyati land, requires a transit permit under Rule 6.6 of the Bihar Timber and Other Forest Produce (Regulation of Transit Rules), 1973.

1. In this writ petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing of seizure of 37 bags of sandal woods in connection with Case No.3011C/93 pending in the court of respondent No. 4 as well as for quashing of the confiscation proceeding initiated by respondent No. 3 in respect of the aforesaid seized articles and for a direction to the respondents to release the seized 37 bags of the said sandal woods.

2. The short facts enumerated in this writ petition are as follows :

A case appears to have been registered on the basis of a report of the Forest Beat Officer, Khunti (respondent No. 2) on the allegation, inter alia, that upon receipt of information that sandal woods cut into pieces had been kept behind the line hotel at village Kujla, Khunti-Torpa Road, he alongwith other personnels of the Forest Department went there and seized the said articles. On enquiry, Kailash Mahto told that the petitioners had purchased the sandal woods from the local villagers and they were trying to transport the same. Thereafter the said 37 bags of sandal woods were seized and were kept in the custody of the Forest Range Officer. On the basis of the aforesaid report, a case, being Case No. 30I1C/93 was instituted. The seizure of the aforesaid sandal wood was reported to respondent No. 3, who initiated a confiscation proceeding and sent an information to the Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Khunti, as per the provision of Section 52(4)(A) of the Indian Forest (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred to as the 1989 Act for short).

3. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is that by virtue of a sale-deed executed on 4-2-1993, Kali Mahto and Laxmi Mahto agreed to seell four standing Chandan trees to petitioner No. 1 from plot No. 1804, Khata No. 11, village Kujla for a sum of Rs. 15,000. Similarly, by virtue of another sale deed executed on 4-2-1993. Bishwanath Matho and Srinath Mahto agreed to sell five standing Chandan trees to petitioner No. 2 from plot No. 1804, Khata No. 11 of village Karmatand for a sum of Rs. 12,000. The petitioners thereafter had obtained a no objection certificate from the Circle Officer, Murhu, on 12-2-1993 showing that the Circle Officer had no objection if the nine sandal wood trees were sold by the vendees to the petitioners. The aforesaid sale deeds and no objection certificate have been filed in this writ petition as Annexure-5, 6 and 7 respectively. After obtaining no objection certificate, the petitioners applied for issuance of transit permit on 20-2-1993 before the Range Officer, Khunti for transporting the aforesaid sandal woods from village Kujla to Kannauj, district Farukhabad (Uttar Pradesh). A copy of the said application dated 20-2-1993 is Annexure 8 to this writ petition. Thereafter by Annexure 9 to this writ petition, the Assistant Conservator of Forest on 27-2-1993 recommended for issuance of transit permit as applied for the petitioners. Meanwhile, it appears that the said sandal woods which were cut into pieces and were being transported, were seized which is the subject-matter of this writ petition.

4. It is stated on behalf of the petitioners that since the sandal woods in question have been cut from the raiyati land of villagers and since it is not a forest produce, it could not have been seized and such seizure is illegal and liable to be quashed. It has also been stated that respondent No. 2 had no authority in law to seize the sandal woods, since those were cut from the raiyati land/plots of the villagers. It has also been contended that since the words in question were not forest produce, no confiscation proceeding could have been initiated for confiscating the 37 bags of sandal woods, seized in this case, it has also been stated that the Forest Beat Officer was not the competent authority to seize the sandal woods aforesaid in this case and as such the whole seizure becomes bad in law and cannot be given effect to.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed on b