The main legal point established in the judgment is that the seizure and confiscation of property must be supported by legal evidence and authority of law. The court emphasized the requirement for notification declaring the land as reserved forest and the need to establish the commission of forest offence.

The petitioners have assailed the order dated 26th February, 1996 (Annexure5) passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Social Forestry Division, Sahibganj, whereby the petitioners' truck, bearing Registration No. BRK 8565, crusher machine, electric motor and diesel engine have been confiscated for committing forest offence and mining stone in violation of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The petitioners have further prayed for quashing the order dated 20th February, 1998 (Annexure6) passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj in R.M.A. No.10 of 199697, whereby the petitioners' appeal has been dismissed and also for quashing the order dated 21st May, 2001 (Annexure2) passed by the Secretary, Ministry of Forest and Environment, Government of Jharkhand-cum-Revisional Authority, whereby the petitioners' revision has been dismissed.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, is that on 3rd December, 1995 at 3.40 p.m., the Authorized Officer of Taljhari Range along with other forest staff and armed forces led by Sub Inspector of Police arrived at Plot No.163 of Mouja Kalyani and seized crusher machine, truck bearing Registration No. BRK 8565, electric motor, diesel engine, stone challies etc., besides other articles of some other persons for committing forest offence and mining stone within the forest area, declared as 'reserved forest'. A, report was prepared and forwarded and on the basis of the said report, Confiscation Proceeding No.4 of 199596 was initiated. In course of investigation, it was found that the truck bearing Registration No. BRK 8565 belonged to Petitioner No.1. He was made Accused No.2. Notices were served on both the petitioners. After considering their reply, the Divisional Forest Officer-cum-Authorized Officer passed order on 26th February, 1996 for confiscation of the seized articles.

3. Against the said order, the petitioners filed appeal before the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Appellate Authority. The said appeal was registered as R.M.A. No.10 of 199697. Learned Deputy Commissioner dismissed the appeal vide order dated 20th February, 1998.

4. The petitioners, thereafter, preferred writ petition, being CWJC No.441 of 1997, challenging the said order. The writ petition was disposed of, directing the District Forest Officer and the District Mining Officer to make a fullfledged enquiry and submit a report to the Collector.

5. In accordance with the said order, a joint enquiry was conducted by the District Forest Officer and District Mining Officer and the report was submitted to the Collector-cum-Appellate Authority on 19th June, 1997.

6. Learned Appellate Authority considered the said enquiry report and dismissed the petitioners' appeal by order dated 20th February, 1998 (Annexure6).

7. The petitioners, thereafter, preferred revision before the Secretary, Ministry of Forest and Environment, Government of Jharkhand-cum-Revisional Authority, who vide order dated 21st May, 2001 dismissed the petitioners' revision.

8. The petitioners, feeling aggrieved, filed the instant writ petition, challenging those orders and also praying for release of their confiscated articles.

9. According to the petitioners, the impugned orders are wholly arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and the same are liable to be quashed.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have not carried out any non-forest activity over Plot No.163. The petitioners have their raiyati land, being Plot No.212 of Mouja Kalyani. They were granted mining lease over Plot No.163 of Kalyani in the year 1970 with the clause of renewal up to 20th June, 2000. At the relevant time the petitioners' lease was subsisting. The petitioners were holding valid lease and were carrying out mining operation since much before coming into force of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Any restriction imposed by virtue of the provisions of the said Act was not applicable on the petitioners. No forest offence either under the Indian Forest Act or under