The court upheld the confiscation of a vehicle for unlawful transport of forest produce, emphasizing the burden of proof lies on the accused to demonstrate lawful usage, which was not fulfilled.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to quash the confiscation order passed under Section 56 of the ORISSA FOREST ACT , 1972, and to release the tractor and trolley seized for alleged illegal transport of forest produce.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The petitioner is the registered owner of a Swaraj Tractor (Reg. No. OD-32-3447) and its Trolley (Reg. No. OD-32-3448), purchased on 19.11.2014, with a commercial permit valid until 24.11.2019 to ply on all motorable roads within the state of Odisha.

(ii) On 05.06.2018, the tractor was detained by the Tahasildar, Seragada, while transporting blasting stone from Ambuabadi Stone Quarry to Valiatota. The Tahasildar allegedly threw the documents provided by the petitioner and seized the vehicle, subsequently informing forest officials.

(iii) The same vehicle was previously seized by the Tahasildar on 26.04.2016 for transporting blasting stone and was handed over to the forest officials. Confiscation proceedings were initiated under O.R. Case No. 07/2016/17, and the vehicle was confiscated on 04.11.2016.

(iv) The petitioner appealed the confiscation in F.A.O. No. 32/2016, and the District Judge ordered the release of the vehicle, but the forest officials did not comply. A writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 8355 of 2017) was filed, resulting in the court directing the release of the vehicle on 27.05.2017.

(v) The vehicle was re-seized on 05.06.2018 near Badagada ’C’ UDPF for alleged transportation of forest produce (Mango Logs and Metal), contradicting the petitioner’s claim that the vehicle was carrying blasting stone. A Writ Petition (W.P.(C) No. 12307 of 2018) led to an order for the proceedings to be concluded within three months.

(vi) Despite the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Authorized Officer issued an order on 05.12.2018 for the confiscation of the vehicle. The petitioner’s appeal in F.A.O. No. 02/2019 was dismissed, but on 24.06.2024, the High Court quashed the appellate order and remitted the case for fresh consideration. The District Judge again dismissed the appeal on 13.11.2024.

(vii) The petitioner argues that the appellate court failed to consider the mandatory requirement of a government notification under Section 34 of the ORISSA FOREST ACT for declaring the area as a protected forest. The petitioner also claims that no evidence supports the vehicle carrying forest produce, asserting it was transporting blasting stone, challenging the legitimacy of the confiscation.

(viii) The petitioner claims the Tahasildar demanded a bribe during the seizure and that discrepancies in the seizure list raise doubts about the legality of the seizure. The petitioner also points to two seizure lists, one prepared at the spot and another a month later.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The petitioner contends that the orders passed by the Authorized Officer and the District Judge are liable to be set aside, as those are based on incorrect findings and riddled with procedural errors, including the failure to consider the mandatory notification under Section 34 of the ORISSA FOREST ACT and the lack of proof for the presence of forest produce.

(ii) The petitioner submits that the repeated seizures and confiscation of the vehicle without proper documentation or proof violate the petitioner’s legal rights, including property rights under the Constitution.

(iii) The learned District Judge erred