Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 20550
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B. S. Bhanumathi, J
H MUTHU RAJU – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH – Respondent
Writ Petition No: 13247 of 2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K. Raghu Veer, K.G. Krishna Moorthy
For the Respondents: G.P. for Forests, Baliboyina Sravani
Seized vehicles should be released promptly to prevent deterioration and loss of value, and the conditions for release, such as bank guarantees, must be reasonable and based on a justified valuation of the property.
Headnote:The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge an order issued under Section 44(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967, which required a bank guarantee of Rs. 5,50,000 for the release of a seized tractor. The vehicle was seized while being used for plowing land claimed as forest land. The court found that the valuation provided by the motor vehicle inspector lacked a proper basis and was excessive given the vehicle's age. The primary issue was whether the imposition of a high bank guarantee for the interim custody of a seized vehicle was arbitrary and whether the vehicle should be released on more reasonable security. The court reasoned that keeping seized vehicles idle in custody leads to rapid deterioration and loss of value, citing the principle that such property should be returned to proper custody subject to conditions that secure the legal proceedings without effectively denying the relief. In the result, the writ petition is allowed altering the condition in the impugned proceeding dated 20.04.2026 seeking bank guarantee for Rs.5,50,000/-, to furnishing third party security for a value of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) with personal bond for the same amount with further conditions that the vehicle should not be sold and its colour should not be changed and other material parts (like chassis etc.,) should not be altered.
The Court made the following:
ORDER:
The writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief:
“…to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the proceeding vide O.R.82/2025-26, dated 20.04.2026 of the respondent No.3 wherein directed the petitioner to submit Rs.5,50,000/- bank guarantee for release of the Mahindra tractor bearing No. AP 40 AB 5635 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondents to release the petitioner‟s vehicle i.e., tractor bearing No.AP 40 AB 5635 on third party security for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/ and pass…”
The case of the petitioner is, stated briefly, as follows:
a. The petitioner is the owner of the tractor bearing No. AP 40 AB 5635 and got it registered with the transport department. One Arunagiri approached the petitioner for engaging the tractor for plowing the land in Sy. No. 1 and 57 of Kangundi Village, Kuppam Mandal, Chittoor District. The father of Arunagiri and K. Armugam and others were granted ryotwari pattas in the said land by the Forest Settlement Officer, Nellore.
b. When the respondents Nos. 2 and 4 tried to interfere with their possession, W.P. No. 28993 of 2021 was filed before this Court. An order of status quo was granted by this Court. The said writ petition is still pending and the interim order is in force.
c. While the matter stood thus, on 04.02.2026, when the tractor of the petitioner was used for ploughing the land at request of Arunagiri, the respondent No. 4 and his subordinates came to the land claiming it as a forest land and stated that it is an offence to plough the land. The petitioner has nothing to do with any alleged act of offence. However, the vehicle of the petitioner was seized by the respondent No. 4. Thus, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 7695 of 2026 before this Court. By an order dated 18.03.2026, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction giving liberty to the petitioner to file an application before the concerned authorities under Section 44(3) of the Andhra Pradesh Forest Act, 1967 (in short „the Act, 1967) and thereafter, the concerned authority shall dispose of the application(s) without any further delay, not later than one week from the date of receipt of that order.
d. Accordingly, the petitioner filed an application before the respondent No. 3 under Section 44(3) of the Act, 1967. Without considering the age of the tractor, the respondent No. 3 got the report from the motor vehicle inspector basing on which an order in O.R.82/2025-26, dated 20.04.2026 was passed directing the petitioner to submit a bank guarantee for Rs.5,50,000/- for release of tractor in interim custody.
e. The tractor is three years old and its value is Rs.1,50,000/- only. The petitioner is ready to furnish third party security for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/-, however the respondent No. 3 has not considered the request of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition was filed.
Ms. Baliboyina Sravani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Forests, placed on record a copy of written instructions of the respondent No. 3, dated 03.05.2026 and argued that the relief claimed by the petitioner is contrary to the valuation fixed by the motor vehicle inspector, Palamaner, (in short „M.V.I.‟) and that the release of the vehicle for an amount below the value assessed by the M.V.I. would defeat the purpose of the Act, 1967 and result in fiscal loss to the government. Therefore, she submitted that the petitioner shall furnish bank guarantee for the full amount as assessed by the M.V.I. and ordered.
In reply, Sri K.G. Krishna Moorthy, learned Senior Counsel representing learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the M.V.I. has not given any reasons for arriving at the value of the vehicle and therefore, it cannot be the basis for fixing the amount of bank guarantee. It is further submitted by him that the petitioner, being a poor farme
