Devan Ramachandran, J.

Three decades and eight years ago, on 07.10.1979, a lorry owned by the petitioner was taken into custody by the forest officials alleging that it was being used to transport Anjili and Kambakom tress and logs cut out of it without authority and that therefore, it was involved in a forest offence. A mahazar for such seizure was recorded, which has been produced by the respondent as Exhibit R1.

2. The lorry was subsequently brought to the Office of the Divisional Forest Officer, Ranni, where a second mahazar was prepared by the Duty Guards, wherein the measurements of the timber and logs were recorded. This mahazar further records that the driver and cleaner of the lorry confessed that the timber and logs were loaded from the reserve forest by five other persons, who were not known to them. The driver and cleaner were, therefore, shown as accused in the mahazar.

3. It appears that the Beat Guards, Deputy Ranger, Assistant Wildlife Preservation Officer and Divisional Range Officer, Ranni immediately thereafter inspected the reserve forest area and they identified certain stumps of Anjili and Kambakom trees, which were suspected to be that of the trees that were being illicitly transported. They, therefore, prepared a third mahazar, a copy of which has been produced as Exhibit R3, wherein, it is recorded that the trees were cut by a certain Mr.Joseph Mathew and his men M/s. Sukumaran Papa, Kuruvilangattil Thomas, Baby Ittikkal, Nanu Janardhanan, Pampadi Thomas Kunjumon and Vazhappanadi Thomas Philip. All these persons have been shown as accused in this mahazar.

4. As part of the investigation, as is revealed by the records, statements were obtained from independent witnesses as also one of the accused mentioned in one of the mahazars. Exhibit R4 is the statement given by Mr.Joseph Antony, who was an independent witnesses in one of the mahazars and he deposed that he saw the aforementioned Joseph Mathew and others loading the timber and logs on to the lorry. Exhibit R5 is the statement given by Mr.Sasidharan, who again is an independent witness shown in one of the mahazars and he stated that he saw the aforementioned Joseph Mathew and his men cut the trees a month earlier and the trees so cut being taken through his property for loading. As regards Exhibit R6 is concerned, it is the statement of Mr.Nanu Janardhanan who is alleged to be one of the employees of Joseph Mathew and he deposed that he had also participated in cutting of the trees and that it was carried by him and others for loading on to the lorry.

5. Foundationalised on these documents, the Divisional Forest Officer, Ranni issued a notice dated 02.02.1980 to the original owner of the lorry, Mr.Gopinathan, asking him to show cause why action should not be taken under the provisions of the Kerala Forest Act, 1951 ('the Act' for brevity) to confiscate the vehicle that was detained. This document has been produced by the respondent as Exhibit R7 in this writ petition. It is obvious from this notice that it has been issued relying on the aforementioned three mahazars and the statements/depositions of the three people mentioned above. The materials on record would indicate that the aforementioned Gopinathan along with the respondent herein had caused a reply to the show cause notice asserting that the vehicle has been purchased by the respondent herein and also that they were not aware of any such illicit transport of timber or logs using their vehicle. The Divisional Forest Officer, Ranni, however, by order dated 21.07.1981 ordered confiscation of the lorry with timber and logs repelling all the contentions of the respondent herein.

6. And then, the long route of litigation began and continued on and on and until now.

7. The respondent commenced the litigation by challenging the confiscation order dated 21.07.1981 by filing C.M.A. No.56/1981 before the District Court, Kollam. This was dismissed by judgment dated 19.02.1983. This judgment was challe