Orissa High Court
Rasmita Sahu vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 10 September, 2025
Author: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Bench: Sanjeeb K Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 16-Sep-2025 16:57:44
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 20175 of 2024
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Rasmita Sahu .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakash Kumar Mishra, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-19.08.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-10.09.2025
Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J.
1. The Petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, challenges the initiation of
confiscation proceeding in OR No. 148 K of 2022-23 pending before
Opposite Party No. 3, arising from seizure of vehicle OD-14K-7029
under seizure memo dated 11.12.2022 on allegations of transporting
Manganese Ore in contravention of Rules 4, 12, 13(2) and 14 of the
Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(i) The Petitioner is the owner of a TATA 3118 TC Truck bearing
Registration No. OD-14K-7029. The said vehicle is regularly engaged in
the transport business in Sundargarh district, carrying various local
requirements, including Manganese Ore and Manganese, within the
local area.
(ii) On 11.12.2022, while the Petitioner's vehicle was allegedly transporting
Manganese Ore from Bonai, at around 10:00 PM, it was intercepted by
forest officials near Gunua Beat. Upon search, the officials allegedly
found the vehicle carrying Manganese Ore.
(iii) The vehicle along with the loaded consignment of Manganese Ore,
weighing about 6.8 Metric Ton, was seized by the forest officials. The
seized truck and ore were placed in the custody of the Forester, Koira
Range.
(iv) On the same day, i.e., 11.12.2022, the Forester, Koira reported the matter
and recommended initiation of confiscation proceedings under Section
56 of the Odisha Forest Act, 1972, read with Rules 4, 12, 13(2) and 14 of
the Orissa Timber and Other Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1980.
(v) Despite receipt of the report, the Assistant Conservator of Forest-cum-
Authorized Officer, Sundargarh Forest Division has not proceeded in
accordance with law. No notice has been issued to the Petitioner under
Section 56(2-b) of the Odisha Forest Act, 1972, thereby keeping the
matter pending without affording the Petitioner any opportunity of
representation.
(vi) Aggrieved by the illegal seizure and inaction of the Authorized Officer
in violation of statutory provisions, the Petitioner has filed the present
writ petition seeking appropriate relief.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The Petitioner contended that although the Forester, Koira Forest
Section alleged seizure of the vehicle when persons attacked the squad
and attempted to abscond with the loaded truck, no FIR was lodged nor
prosecution initiated before the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate under
the Odisha Forest Act, 1972, the Orissa Timber and Other Forest
Produce Transit Rules, 1980, or the IPC. The Petitioner asserted that
such prosecution is a condition precedent to confiscation under Section
56 of the Odisha Forest Act. Even though Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3
claimed two persons were arrested, the Petitioner submitted that there
is no record of their production before a court or initiation of
proceedings, exposing a fundamental procedural lapse vitiating the
confiscation.
(ii) The Petitioner contended that though the Opposite Parties alleged
violation of the Transit Rules, Manganese Ore is a minor forest produce
which under Rule 5(i) does not require a transit permit within the
district, rendering the seizure illegal. The Petitioner asserted that the
alleged place of occurrence, Gunua Forest, is merely a proposed reserve
forest and has not been notified as a Reserved Forest under the Odisha
Forest Act, 1972. The Petitioner submitted that in the absence of such
notification, quarrying or removal therefrom cannot constitute a forest
offence under Section 27(3) of the Odisha Forest Act, 1972. Reliance was
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
placed on Narinder Singh v. Divesh Bhutani1, wherein the Supreme
Court clarified that a forest acquires the status of a reserved forest only
upon issuance of a formal notification to that effect, and not otherwise.
(iii) The Petitioner asserted that although the vehicle was seized on
11.12.2022 and referred for confiscation, and the proceeding has been
under challenge since 02.08.2024, notice was served on the Petitioner
only yesterday. The Petitioner contended that the notice now alleges
commission of an offence under Section 27(1)(b) of the Odisha Forest
Act, 1972, which had never been the basis of seizure earlier. The
Petitioner submitted that this change occurred only after this Court, by
order dated 08.04.2025, directed production of the confiscation record,
which was placed before the Court on 06.08.2025.
(iv) The Petitioner contended that though the prosecution report alleged
transportation of Manganese Ore, invocation of Rule 4 of the Transit
Rules is wholly misconceived, as there was no transportation without a
valid permit. The Petitioner asserted that Rule 5 specifically exempts
minor forest produce from the requirement of a transit permit, and
Manganese Ore falls within that category, thereby rendering the seizure
unsustainable.
(v) The Petitioner submitted that Manganese Ore is a mineral included in
Schedule I of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)
Act, 1957, which exclusively governs its excavation and transport. The
Petitioner contended that Section 21 of the MMDR Act provides
penalties for contravention, with Sub-sections (4) and (4-A) specifically
(2023) 17 SCC 779
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
regulating seizure and confiscation. The Petitioner asserted that,
accordingly, initiation of confiscation proceedings under Section 56 of
the Odisha Forest Act, 1972 for transportation of Manganese Ore is
without jurisdiction.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the
following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The offence squarely attracts Section 27(1)(b) of the Odisha Forest Act,
1972, as the extraction and transportation of Manganese Ore was from
within the Gunua Proposed Reserved Forest, in respect of which a
notification under Section 4 of the Act has been issued.
(ii) The plea that there is "no such concept as a proposed reserved forest"
is misconceived. Section 4 of the Odisha Forest Act, 1972 expressly
empowers the State Government to issue a notification declaring its
proposal to constitute any land as a reserved forest. Such notification
specifies the boundaries of the land and triggers the appointment of a
Forest Settlement Officer to inquire into existing rights. From the date
of such notification, the land acquires the legal status of a proposed
reserved forest, and the prohibitions under Section 27(1)(b) become
immediately operative to safeguard the land and its produce pending
final reservation under Section 21 of the Act.
(iii) In the present case, the seizure was effected from within the Gunua
Proposed Reserved Forest, a notified proposed reserved forest under
Section 4 of the Odisha Forest Act, 1972. Section 27(1)(b) therefore
applies, rendering the seizure, confiscation, and prosecution under
Section 56 of the Odisha Forest Act, 1972 fully justified.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
(iv) The contention that the Mines and Minerals (Development and
Regulation) Act, 1957 alone governs Manganese Ore is untenable. The
Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 and the
Odisha Forest Act, 1972 operate in distinct fields and are not mutually
exclusive. Section 2(g) of the Odisha Forest Act, 1972 defines "forest
produce" to include minerals found in or removed from forest land.
Illegal extraction or transportation of minerals from forest land without
lawful authority therefore attracts both statutes.
(v) In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kallo Bai2, the Supreme Court upheld
prosecution under the Forest Act for removal of minerals from forest
land notwithstanding the applicability of the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, and affirmed that confiscation
under the Forest Act is an independent remedy intended to deter forest
offences and prevent destruction of forest resources.
(vi) The Petitioner's reliance on the Odisha Forest (Detection, Inquiry and
Disposal of Forest Offence) Rules, 1980 is equally misconceived. A Full
Bench of the Orissa High Court in Ananta Bandhu Mandal v. State of
Odisha3, categorically held that the 1980 Rules have no application to
confiscation proceedings before the Authorised Officer under Section
56 of the Odisha Forest Act, 1972. Such proceedings are quasi-judicial in
nature and distinct from the trial of forest offences before criminal
courts. In the present case, the proceedings initiated are strictly confined
to confiscation of the seized vehicle and Manganese Ore, and the alleged
non-compliance with the 1980 Rules has no relevance.
(2017) 14 SCC 502.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
IV. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on
record.
6. The core question is whether the seizure and initiation of confiscation
under Section 56 of the Odisha Forest Act, 1972, in respect of vehicle
OD-14K-7029 allegedly transporting manganese ore from Gunua forest
land notified under Section 4, is legally sustainable in light of the
statutory framework, the interplay with the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, the petitioner's reliance on
transit-permit exemptions and the status of the land, and the objections
regarding absence of First Information Report and belated notice under
Section 56(2-b).
7. The Odisha Forest Act, 1972 creates a distinct legal regime. Under
Section 4, the State Government may notify its proposal to constitute
land as a reserved forest. Sections 5 to 20 provide for settlement of rights
and demarcation, culminating in a final declaration under Section 21.
Section 27(1)(b) prohibits removal of forest produce or damage to any
forest land "in respect of which a notification under Section 4 has been
issued." Thus, from the date of such notification, the land comes under
statutory protection even before the final declaration under Section 21.
8. Section 2(g) defines "forest produce" to include minerals found in or
removed from a forest. Manganese ore extracted or transported from
notified forest land therefore constitutes forest produce. Section 56
empowers the Authorised Officer to order confiscation of such produce
and the vehicles or implements used, subject to safeguards under
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Section 56(2-b), which mandate notice, opportunity of representation,
and hearing.
9. The Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957
regulates mining operations. Section 21 prescribes penalties and
authorises seizure and confiscation of minerals mined or transported in
contravention of the Act. Its scheme does not exclude application of the
Odisha Forest Act where removal occurs from forest land.
10. In Kallo Bai (supra), the Supreme Court upheld prosecution under the
Forest Act for illegal removal of minerals from forest land despite the
applicability of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation)
Act. The Court clarified that confiscation under the Forest Act is an
independent remedy intended to deter forest offences and protect
resources, and operates concurrently with the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act.
11. In Narinder Singh (supra), the Supreme Court explained that under the
Indian Forest Act, 1927, land becomes a "reserved forest" only upon
final notification under Section 20, and a "protected forest" only upon
notification under Section 29. However, the Odisha Forest Act, 1972
expressly extends statutory protection under Section 27(1)(b) to land
notified under Section 4. The ratio in Narinder Singh (supra) cannot
dilute this express protection.
12. The record establishes that the seizure occurred within Gunua Proposed
Reserved Forest, notified under Section 4. From that point, the land
constituted "forest land in respect of which a notification under Section
4 has been issued," thereby attracting Section 27(1)(b). The manganese
ore seized, being "forest produce" under Section 2(g), and the vehicle
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
used for its removal, fall within the confiscatory jurisdiction of the
Authorised Officer under Section 56.
13. The plea that manganese ore is "minor forest produce" exempt from
transit permits under Rule 5 of the Orissa Timber and Other Forest
Produce Transit Rules, 1980 does not dilute the substantive prohibition
in Section 27(1)(b). What is alleged is not merely transport without a
permit, but removal from forest land protected under Section 4.
14. The contention that proceedings must lie exclusively under the Mines
and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act is untenable in light of
Kallo Bai, which affirms that Forest Act provisions apply concurrently
and that confiscation is an independent remedy.
15. As for the objection that no First Information Report or prosecution was
lodged and that notice under Section 56(2-b) was delayed, it suffices that
confiscation is a quasi-judicial proceeding independent of criminal
prosecution. The statutory safeguard lies in Section 56(2-b), which has
now been invoked by issuance of notice. The petitioner will have full
opportunity to contest before the Authorised Officer, who must render
a reasoned decision.
V. CONCLUSION:
16. This Court is satisfied that the Opposite Parties have acted within the
statutory framework, and that initiation of confiscation under Section
56 of the Odisha Forest Act, 1972 in respect of manganese ore removed
from Gunua Proposed Reserved Forest is legally sustainable.
17. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
18. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 10th Sept., 2025/
