Silva Et Al. V. The Attorney General

 

1940     Present: Moseley S.P.J. and Keuneman J.

 

SILVA et al. v. THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL.

 

225-D. C. Colombo, 7,632.

 

Forest Ordinance-Seizure of timber felled from Crown forest-Reason to believe that offence has been committed-Material upon which the deci­sion may be reached-Good faith-Forest Ordinance, ss. 37 and 61 (Cap 311).

 

The Government Agent (Uva) on receipt of information from the Ratemahatmaya that the plaintiff was felling timber in certain areas of land which were in process of settlement under the Land Settlement Ordinance referred the matter to the Settlement Officer.

 

On the advice of the Settlement Officer that no private claim to the forest in the land could be recognized the plaintiff was requested in writing to cease felling and warned not to remove the timber already felled.

 

Thereupon the Government Agent wrote to the Ratemahatmaya authorising him to seize the timber and to see that that no felled timber was removed.

 

The Government Agent purporting to act under the provisions of section 39 of the Forest Ordinance made a report which in effect suggested that a forest offence had been committed and which promised a further report when investigations had been completed.

 

Held, that upon the material contained in the advice of the Settlement Officer, the Government Agent, as Forest Officer, had reason to believe that a forest offence had been committed and that the seizure of the timber was lawful.

 

Held, further, that the Government Agent in authorising the seizure was acting in good faith and that he was protected by section 61 of the Forest Ordinance.

 

APPEAL from a judgment of the District Judge of Colombo. The facts appear from the judgment.

 

L. M. de Silva, K.C. (with him D. W. Fernando and J. A. T. Perera), for plaintiffs, appellants.

 

E. G. P. Jayatileke, K.C., S.-G. (with him T. S. Fernando, C.C.), for substituted defendant, respondent.

 

Cur. adv. vult. 

 

February 3, 1941. MOSELEY S.P.J.-

 

The plaintiffs appellants brought this action in the first place against Mr. E. T. Millington who at all times material to the action was Govern­ment Agent of the Province of Uva, claiming from him damages in respect of the seizure by him of certain logs of satinwood which they had felled on land known as Etimole Nindagama. The Government undertook the defence of the action and, in accordance with the provisions of section 463 of the Civil Procedure Code (Cap. 86), the Attorney-General was substituted as defendant in the action.

 

The parties went to trial on the following issues : -

[if !supportEm

Click Here to Read the rest of this document