Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
Shri Shobhit Thapliyal and another – Appellants
Versus
Conservator of Forest, Shivalik Circle and another - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 813 of 2022 (M/s), Writ Petition No. 814 of 2022 (M/s)
Decided on : 02-11-2023
Seizure - Timber - Indian Forest Act, 1927, Section 52-A, Section 52-B
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought directions for quashing the seizure order dated 01.07.2018 and release of the timber seized by the respondent authorities. The petitioners claimed ownership of the timber seized on 01.07.2018 and sought its release.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had cut trees from Government land in excess of the permission granted, committed forest offences, and the timber had been confiscated under Section 52-A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The court also noted that the petitioners had not challenged the confiscation order or preferred an appeal under Section 52-B of the Act.
Issues: Ownership of seized timber, legality of seizure order, challenge to confiscation order, forest offences committed by the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners had committed forest offences by cutting trees from Government land in excess of the permission granted. The court also emphasized that the petitioners had not challenged the confiscation order or availed the remedy of appeal under Section 52-B of the Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed both writ petitions, stating that there was no reason to interfere in the petitions.
JUDGMENT :
Since in both these petitions, the common questions of law and facts are involved, they are heard together and being decided by this common judgment.
2. In both these petitions, the petitioners seek directions for quashing the seizure order dated 01.07.2018 [in WP (M/S) No. 813 of 2022, the seizure is made in Case No. 08 Laldhang/2018-19 dated 02.07.2018 and in WP (M/S) No. 814 of 2022, the seizure is made in Case No. 07 Laldhang/2018-19 dated 02.07.2018]. The petitioners in both these writ petitions also seek release of the timber seized by the respondent authorities.
FACTS
WP (M/S) No. 813 of 2022
3. Briefly stated, according to the petitioners, the petitioner no. 2 Anand Singh sought permission to cut down 30 trees of Khair standing on his land bearing Plot No. 3602, 3603, 3604, and 3605, situated at Village Banas, P.O. Kimsar, Tehsil Yamkeshwar, District Pauri Garhwal. The respondent no. 2 accorded permission to cut down the trees vide its order dated 25.05.2018. Thereafter the chronology is as follows:-
(ii) The petitioner no. 2 Anand Singh sold the sanctioned trees to the petitioner no. 1 Shobhit Thapliyal on 01.06.2018.
(iii) After cutting the trees, the logs and other parts of the timber were measured by the Forest Department on 18.06.2018 and they found that the total produce were 302 logs admeasuring 8.668 cubic meters and roots to the tune of 80 quintals.
(iv) On a request made, the respondent no. 2 permitted transportation of the logs in two trucks, by his communication dated 30.06.2018.
(v) The petitioners were transporting the logs and other material in Truck No. UK 12 CB-1622 on 01.07.2018.
(vi) The transit pass was accordingly issued on 01.07.2018. It had 155 logs of 4.147 cubic meters and roots to the tune of 40 quintals only.
(vii) On the way, the truck was inspected by the Forest Authorities and it was found that it was carrying timber different than the transit pass, and more in quantity. It was carrying 280 logs of 9.733 cubic meters.
(viii) Accordingly, the timber was taken into custody and Range Case No. 08 Laldhang/2018-19 dated 02.07.2018 was lodged against the petitioner Anand Singh and others.
(ix) The petitioners sought release of the vehicle by making an application to the respondent no. 2.
(x) The petitioners did file Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1248 of 2019, Sri Anand Singh and another v. State of Uttarakhand and another, which was dismissed on 13.05.2019 (“the first petition”).
(xi) The petitioners challenged the order dated 13.05.2019 passed in the first petition in Special Appeal No. 555 of 2019, Shri Anand Singh and another v. State of Uttarakhand and another, which was decided on 10.06.2019, with the liberty to the petitioners to make a representation to the respondent no. 2.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that the challan has yet not been submitted in the court by the Forest Authorities. The petitioners are owner of the timber that was seized on 01.07.2018; therefore, the order of seizure dated 01.07.2018 deserves to be set aside and the timber that has been seized should be released in favour of the petitioners.
5. The respondents have filed counter affidavit. According to the respondents, though the petitioner no. 2 Anand Singh was granted permission to cut down 30 trees from his private land, but the trees were cut from the Government land; in vehicle No. UK-12CB-1622, permission was given by transit pass No. 14/18 for 155 logs of 4.147 cubic meters, whereas 280 logs of 9.733 cubic meters were seized in transition; the quantity of timber as given in transit pass was different than the timber that was seized. It is also the case of the respondents that the Revenue Officer also inquired into the matter and they found that against the permission of cutting down 60 trees (30 trees in the instant case and 30 trees in the connec
AI
The main legal point established is that the petitioners committed forest offences by cutting trees from Government land in excess of the permission granted and failed to challenge the confiscation o....
When there is reason to believe that a forest-offence has been committed in respect of any forest-produce, such produce together with all tools, boats, carts or cattle used in committing any such off....
Confiscation under the Orissa Forest Act requires proof of a forest offence and adherence to procedural safeguards, failure of which invalidates the confiscation order.
The petitioner failed to establish that his vehicle was used without his knowledge, as required by Section 56(2-c) of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972, demonstrating insufficient proof of diligence agains....
The legality of the seizure of the vehicle under the Kerala Forest Act and the requirement of simultaneous seizure of contraband articles were the central legal points established in the judgment.
Transit of forest-produce beyond pass validity constitutes forest-offence mandating confiscation of produce/vehicle; strict compliance essential as deterrent to deforestation, liberally construed for....
Point of law : Recording of reasons by an administrative or Quasi-judicial authority serves a salutary purpose, namely, it excludes chances of arbitrariness and ensures a degree of fairness in the pr....
Point of Law : 18. Vehicle seized for committing forest offence was not normally to be released to party till culmination of all proceedings in respect of forest offence as particular approach in mat....
Point of Law : 19. Vehicle seized for committing forest offence was not normally to be released to party till culmination of all proceedings in respect of forest offence as particular approach in mat....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
