[2026:RJ-JD:8269]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 581/2026 Jashwant Singh S/o Pratap Singh, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of Ward 04, Bhanpura, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Chief Conservator Of Forests (Wildlife), Udaipur ,rajasthan

3. The Authorized Officer And Deputy Conservator Of Forests (Wildlife), Rajsamand, Rajasthan

4. The Regional Forest Officer (Wildlife), Range Kumbhalgarh, District Rajsamand, Rajasthan

5. The Station House Officer (Sho), P.s. Kelwara District Rajsamand, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakash Banjara For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.S. Chandawat, DyGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

11/02/2026

1. The present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been instituted by the petitioner, Jashwant Singh, challenging the order dated 28.01.2026 passed by the Authorized Officer under Section 52(3) of the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953, whereby the petitioner’s JCB machine bearing Registration No. RJ-27-EA-6875 has been declared as State property. The petitioner seeks quashing of the said order and the consequential communication dated 30.01.2026 and prays for release of the vehicle in terms of the judicial order dated

24.07.2025.

2. Brief facts of the case necessary for adjudication are that the petitioner is the registered owner of the aforesaid vehicle. On 22.06.2025, forest officials alleged that the vehicle had entered the sanctuary area without authorization, damaged a boundary wall, undertaken excavation, and caused damage to a government vehicle. A forest offence report, F.D. Form No.8 (Case No.157/37) was registered under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953. On the following day, FIR No. 105/2025 was registered at Police Station Kelwara under relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, and the vehicle was seized.

3. By order dated 24.07.2025, the Judicial Magistrate, Kumbhalgarh directed release of the vehicle to the petitioner on supurdginama upon furnishing bond of ₹32,00,000/- subject to conditions, which were complied with. Thereafter, proceedings under Section 52 of the Rajasthan Forest Act were initiated. The petitioner appeared pursuant to notice and submitted his explanation. By order dated 28.01.2026, the Authorized Officer declared the vehicle as State property. The order was communicated on 30.01.2026, giving rise to the present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order does not record the statutory satisfaction required under Section 52 before declaring the vehicle as State property. It is contended that though the petitioner’s defence, including reliance on a Gram Panchayat work order and his absence from the alleged site, has been noticed, it has not been analysed with reasons. The order, it is urged, merely reiterates the forest offence report without independent evaluation and does not record any finding regarding the petitioner’s knowledge or connivance. Grounds regarding double jeopardy and petitioner’s right to property and livelihood have also been submitted.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the impugned order has been passed in exercise of statutory powers under Section 52 after affording notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is contended that the material before the Authorized Officer disclosed involvement of the vehicle in activities within the sanctuary area and that confiscation proceedings are independent of criminal prosecution. The earlier judicial release of the vehicle on supurdginama, it is submitted, does not curtail or restrict the statutory power of confiscation. Learned counsel further raises a preliminary objection to the maintainabilit