Sunil Thomas, J.

1. This revision at the instance of the Divisional Forest Officer and the forest officials of the Kerala Government, filed under Section 61D of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act") is directed against the judgment of the District Court, Ernakulam in C.M.A. No. 97 of 2010. The first respondent is the owner of a mini lorry and the second respondent is the owner of a pick up van. It was alleged that on 18.06.2010, both the above vehicles were used to transport 37 pieces of different species of forest timber illegally felled from the property belonging to one Josepheena @ Thankama, situated in Kuttampuzha Village. The vehicles were seized by the forest officials alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 27(d) and (e) of the Act. The mahazar was prepared and Crime No. 8/10 of the Pooyamkutty Forest Station was registered. After investigation, final report was laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Kothamangalam and the crime is pending.

2. The first revision petitioner herein, who is the authorized officer under Section 61A of the Act, initiated confiscation proceedings with respect to both the vehicles. After notice to all concerned, by order dated 09.09.2010, it was held that both the vehicles were used for transporting forest timber and thereby involved in the commission of the forest offences and ordered confiscation under Section 61A(2) of the Act. This was challenged by respondents 1 and 2 herein before the District Court, which allowed the appeal by the impugned judgment and ordered release of the vehicles. The legality and correctness of that finding is challenged in this revision.

3. The short question on which the entire issue is formulated is whether the vehicles were involved in the transportation of any forest timber. Admittedly, Josepheena @ Thankama had been issued a pattayam under the Kerala Land Assignment (Regularization of Occupation of Forest Lands prior to 1-1-1977) Special Rules, 1993 (for short, "the Special Rules"). The precise contention set up by the owners of the vehicles was that trees were allegedly cut from the pattayam land and there was no prohibition in cutting such trees.

4. The species of trees allegedly cut are Jackfruit trees, Maruta, Angili, Venga, Mango tree and Payyani. A schedule is seen incorporated in the Pattayam, which refer to the few species of trees by name, which are teak, Anjili, Maruta, Vellilavu, Cheeni and Mullu venga. The first condition in the pattayam is that the entire right over all forest trees standing in the assigned land and specifically referred to in the Schedule vests with the government forest department, and the assignee is bound to maintain all trees existing at the time of assignment and such trees as may be grown in the property later. Second condition is that the assignee shall assist the forest officials to enter the property to inspect such trees, from time to time and if necessary, to remove such trees. However, Clause 7 of Order of Assignment of Registry enjoins that "identified forest trees, viz., teak, rosewood, sandalwood, blackwood, ebony, etc., and mentioned in the Kerala Preservation of Trees Act, 1986 (Act 35 of 1986) in the land shall be accounted and preserved by Forest Department". Evidently, the assignment order refers to the preservation of Trees Act, though the pattayam does not refer to that Act. However, both the documents denote the trees as "forest trees". The Preservation of Trees Act does not define "forest tree". It defines only "tree" under Section 2(e) with reference to the specific species of trees mentioned therein. The trees mentioned therein are sandal wood, teak, rosewood, irul, thempavu, kampakam, chempakam, chadachi, chandana vempu and cheeni. Since "forest tree" is not defined, the term can have only the literal meaning of trees grown in a forest. The contention of the owners of the vehicles was that if few trees other than those referred to in the Kerala Preservation of