When a vehicle is seized for a forest offence involving the transport of forest produce, it shall not be released as a matter of course; however, in exceptional cases involving agricultural necessity, the court may order its release conditional upon the provision of a bank guarantee.

ORDER:

1. This writ petition is filed with the following prayer:

“…to issue a Writ or Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus duly declaring the action of the respondent Nos.4th and 5th respondents in registering POR No.25/06, dated 21-07-2025 by seizing the JOHN DEERE Tractor bearing No.AP 15 BM 9451 as illegal null void arbitrary and consequentially direct the respondents to release the JOHN DEERE Tractor bearing No.AP 15 BM 9451 to the petitioner and to pass such other order or orders…”

2. On the earlier occasion i.e., on 07.04.2026, when this Court queried for certain clarifications, learned counsel for petitioner sought time. Today, when the matter is called, learned counsel for petitioner seeks time to file additional material papers, this Court is not inclined to grant any adjournments.

3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Forest appearing for respondents.

4. It is the case of petitioner that tractor bearing No.AP 15 BM 9451 (John Deere tractor model No.5055 E) belonging to petitioner was seized by respondent authorities, the said seizure is under challenge. It is also the case of petitioner that crime in P.O.R.No.25/2026 dated 21.07.2025 was registered against petitioner’s son on the file Judicial First Class Magistrate at Kamareddy.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is the owner of tractor (Ex.P7, page No.29), that he is an agriculturist and also doing job works of local agriculturists. That the allegations made by respondents are totally false and frivolous. It is further submitted that tractor seized is used for agricultural operations during the agriculture season and that petitioner nor his son damaged or cultivated the forest land and it is only an allegation of respondent authorities. It is submitted that if tractor is not released, petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and that the officers have intentionally registered a crime against petitioner’s son.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner invited the attention of this Court to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.4390 of 2025 and submitted that Sections 44(1) and 44(3) of the Telangana Forest Act, 1967 (for short ‘the Act’), provide for release of vehicle on certain conditions and submitted that similar orders be passed in this writ petition.

7. Learned counsel for petitioner further relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.838 of 2023 and submitted that in a similar situation, when respondent therein was found ploughing and levelling the forest land, the vehicle was released on execution of a bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties. Further reliance is placed on the judgments of learned Single Judge(s) of this Court in W.P.Nos.19948 of 2025 and 17776 of 2023 and submitted that in all these matters, Sections 44(1) and 44(3) of the Act have been considered and the vehicle(s) seized have been released on execution of bonds. It is also submitted that in one such matter, the Division Bench increased the quantum of bond amount from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.50,000/- and under similar conditions, vehicle was released, hence, requested that similar orders be passed.

8. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader for Forest appearing for respondents submitted that facts and circumstances, in which learned Single Judges and Divi