1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution assails the order dated 16.9.2014 (Annexure P-1), order dated 27.4.2013 (Annexure P-2) and order dated 20.1.2013 (Annexure P-3).

2. Brief facts for adjudication of this matter are that the petitioner is owner of tractor No.M.P.08M 1946. On 19.7.2012, the petitioner’s tractor was seized by the Forest Department with the allegation that he was cultivating the notified and reserved forest land. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice. He denied the allegations by filing reply. Thereafter the specified authority by order dated 21.1.2013 found that the offence under section 33 (1) (c) of Indian Forest Act, 1927 (for brevity ‘Forest Act’) are established. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by this order, preferred an appeal which was registered as Case

No.1/2013. The appellate authority by order dated 27.4.2013 rejected this appeal. The petitioner then preferred revision which was registered as Revision No.54/2013. The Special Judge, Shivpuri rejected the said revision by order dated 16.9.2014.

3. Shri Vilas Tikhe, learned counsel for the petitioner advanced singular contention. He submits that even if it is found that the petitioner committed the offence mentioned in section 33 (1) (c) of the Forest Act, his vehicle cannot be confiscated under section 52 of the Forest Act. To elaborate, it is contended that from petitioner’s tractor no forest produce is recovered. He has not committed any offence in respect of any forest produce and therefore power of seizure and confiscation could not have been exercised. Reliance is placed on the judgment of Supreme Court, reported in AIR 2012 SC 1502 (State of Kerala v. P.V. Mathew).

4. Prayer is opposed by Shri Vishal Mishra, learned Deputy Advocate General. He supported the orders passed by the Court/authorities below.

5. No other point is pressed by learned counsel for the parties.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Before dealing with the rival contentions of the parties, I deem it proper to reproduce relevant sections of Forest Act. section 2(3) and section 2(4) read as under :-

“2(3). “forest-offence” means an offence punishable under this Act or under any rule made thereunder ;

2(4) “forest-produce” includes -

(a) the following whether found in, or brought from, a forest or not, that is to say:-

timber, charcoal, caoutchouc, catechu, wood-oil, resin, natural varnish, bark, lac, [shellac, gum], mahua flowers, mahua seeds [tendu leaves], kuth and myrobalans, and

(b) the following when found in, or brought from a forest, that is to say :-

(i) trees and leaves, flowers and fruits, and all other parts or produce not hereinbefore mentioned, of trees,

(ii) plants not being trees (including grass, creepers, reeds and moss), and all parts or produce of such plants,

(iii) wild animals and skins, tusks, horns, bones, silk, cocoons, honey, and wax, and all other parts of produce of animal, and

(iv) peat, surface soil, rock, and minerals (including limestone, laterite, mineral oils, and all products of mines or quarries);

(v) standing agricultural crops.”

section 33 (1) (c) of Forest Act reads as under :-

“contrary to any prohibition under section 30, clears or breaks up any land for cultivation or for any other purpose, or cultivates or attempts to cultivate any land in any other manner in any protected forest;”

By Madhya Pradesh Act, 25 of 1983 section 52 is substituted in Madhya Pradesh. section 52(1) reads as under:-

“When there is reason to believe a forestoffence has been committed in respect of any forest-produce, such produce, together with all tools, boats, vehicles, ropes, chains or any other article used in committing any such offence, may be seized by any Forest-officer or Police officer.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

8. As noticed, the bone of contention of the petitioner is that section 52 cannot be invoked for seizure of tractor unless offence has been committed