Confiscation under the Orissa Forest Act requires proof of a forest offence and adherence to procedural safeguards, failure of which invalidates the confiscation order.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEB K. PANIGRAHI, J.

1. The Petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, seeks quashing of the order dated 12.08.2025 passed by the learned District Judge, Nayagarh in F.A.O. No. 7 of 2025, and the order dated 13.05.2025 passed by the Authorised Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forests, Nayagarh in O.R. Case No. 12K of 2024–25, purportedly in exercise of powers under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. Succinctly put, the facts of the case as narrated by the petitioner are as follows:

(i) The petitioner had purchased a tractor along with a trolley by availing finance from a private financial institution. The said tractor–trolley was duly registered, the tractor bearing Registration No. OD-25-L-6493 and the trolley bearing Registration No. OD-25-L-6545, and the petitioner is the registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle.

(ii) The petitioner had handed over his vehicle to the driver at the relevant point of time under a bona fide belief and in good faith, having regard to the past conduct of the said driver and the smooth management of the vehicle.

(iii) On 24.12.2023 at about 2.00 p.m., upon receiving information from a reliable source that a tractor loaded with sal logs was being transported from a mango field in village Barpali, the Forester along with staff of Barpali Beat proceeded to the spot.

(iv) Upon inspection, the tractor bearing Registration No. OD-25-L-6493 along with the trolley bearing Registration No. OD-25-L-6545 was found loaded with nine numbers of sal logs without any hammer impression.

(v) On noticing the presence of the forest staff, the driver of the tractor fled from the spot. No supporting or transit documents were found at the spot. Thereafter, the Forest Guard of Barpali Beat seized the aforesaid vehicle along with the sal logs and brought the same to the Range Officer Camp, Khandapada, where the seized articles were kept under zima for safe custody.

(vi) On the basis of the aforesaid allegation, a U.D. Case bearing No. 12 of 2023–24 was registered in Khandapada Range.

(vii) Pursuant to issuance of notice to the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted, wherein it was alleged that a forest offence had been committed in violation of Rules 4, 12 and 14 of the Odisha Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980, punishable under Section 21 thereof, and that the vehicle was involved in the commission of such forest offence attracting the provisions of Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972.

(viii) On the basis of the investigation report submitted by the Forester, Khandapada Section (Opposite Party No. 4), and the recommendation of Opposite Party No. 3, the earlier U.D. Case No. 12 of 2023–24 was converted into O.R. Case No. 12K of 2024–25 and a confiscation proceeding under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972 was initiated before the Authorised Officer-cum-Assistant Conservator of Forests, Nayagarh (Opposite Party No. 2).

(ix) Upon recording the statements of the forest staff of Barpali Beat House and the Forester and Ranger of Khandapada Forest Range, and on consideration of the connected records, Opposite Party No. 2 passed an order dated 13.05.2025 confiscating the petitioner’s vehicle under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972.

(x) Being aggrieved by the order of confiscation dated 13.05.2025, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Nayagarh, being F.A.O. No. 7 of 2025. The learned appellate court, by order dated 12.08.2025, dismissed the said appeal, holding that the evidence adduced by the petitioner was not sufficient to warrant