Telangana High Court

Sri. Danavath Ramu vs The State Of Telangana And 3 Others on 28 December, 2022

Bench: P.Madhavi Devi

      THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI

                WRIT PETITION NO.22272 OF 2022
                                   AND
                WRIT PETITION NO.23001 OF 2022

                          COMMON ORDER


      Both the Writ Petitions are filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to

declare the proceedings of respondent No.4 in Appeal No.182/2022

dt.08.04.2022 confirming the order of respondent No.2 in proceedings

No.1640/2021/S6 dt.28.12.2021 in ordering for confiscation of vehicle

Tractor bearing No. AP 25 AJ 1200 to the Government and the

proceedings of respondent No.4 in Appeal No.752/2022 dt.12.04.2022

confirming the order of respondent No.2 in proceedings

No.1567/2021/S6, dt.28.12.2021 in POR No.44/271 dt.03.05.2021 in

ordering for confiscation of vehicle Tractor bearing No. AP 25 AF 7483,

to the Government respectively, as illegal and arbitrary, and

consequently to set aside the same and to direct respondents 2 and 3 to

release the Tractors bearing Nos. AP 25 AJ 1200 and AP 25 AF 7483 to

the petitioners and to pass such other order or orders as this Court may

deem fit and necessary in the interest of justice.

W.P.Nos.36403 & 38178 of 2022

2. Thus, from the above prayer, it is seen that both the Writ Petitions

are challenging the confiscation orders passed by respondent No.2

confiscating the vehicles of the respective petitioners under Section

44(2) of the T.S. Forest Act, 1967. The petitioners had filed Appeals

before respondent No.4 against the confiscation orders and the same

have been confirmed by the Appellate Authority and against the same,

the present Writ Petitions are filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Akkam Eshwar, submitted

that undisputedly the properties of the petitioners in both the Writ

Petitions are adjacent to the forest land and the petitioner in

W.P.No.23001 of 2022 and petitioner No.1 in W.P.No.22272 of 2022

are owners of the respective vehicles and that the 1st accused in POR

No.44/271 hired the vehicle of the petitioner in W.P.No.23001 of 2022,

while petitioner No.2 in W.P.No.22272 of 2022 hired the vehicle of

petitioner No.1 in W.P.No.22272 of 2022 for ploughing their lands and

in accordance with their directions, the petitioners had ploughed the land

and by mistake not knowing the boundaries of the land, they have

ploughed the forest land for which POR cases have already been booked

and they are pending adjudication. It is submitted that thereafter, W.P.Nos.36403 & 38178 of 2022

respondent No.2 has issued show-cause notices to the petitioners as to

why the vehicles should not be confiscated under Section 44 of the

Telangana Forest Act, 1967 and thereafter, the confiscation orders have

been passed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Section 44

of the Telangana Forest Act, 1967 is not attracted in this case as it deals

with only the vehicles which are accused of engaging in a forest offence,

i.e., with forest timber and forest produce and since in these cases, there

was no involvement of forest timber or forest produce which are

involved, the confiscation is bad in law. He placed reliance upon a

judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in the case of Sub-

Divisional Forest Officer, Chennur Vs. Vijay B. Gulati and others1.

He submitted that the version of the petitioners was that ploughing of

the forest land was due to ignorance of the boundaries and therefore, this

judgment would be applicable to this case and the orders of confiscation

should be set aside.

5. Learned Government Pleader for Forests, however, relied upon

the averments in the counter affidavit and submitted that the petitioner

1998 (1) ALD 117 (FB) W.P.Nos.36403 & 38178 of 2022

in W.P.No.23001 of 2022 and petitioner No.1 in W.P.No.22272 of 2022

being owners of the tractors were hired by the land owners who were

well aware that their land is adjacent to the forest land and got their land

ploughed along with the forest land and since the petitioners being the

owners of the vehicles are equally responsible and thereby committed a

forest offence as defined under Section 2(e) of the Telangana Forest Act,

1967 and as the vehicles of the petitioners were involved in the forest

offence, the vehicles were liable to be confiscated under Section 44 of

the Telangana Forest Act, 1967. He therefore prayed for dismissal of

the Writ Petitions.

6. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record,

this Court finds that admittedly, the vehicles were involved in the forest

offence of ploughing of the forest land, and the authority has drawn the

power from Section 44 of the Telangana Forest Act, 1967 to seize such

vehicles.

7. The Judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of the erstwhile Andhra

Pradesh High Court in the case of Sub-Divisional Forest Officer,

Chennur Vs. Vijay B. Gulati and others (1 supra) referred to the

provisions of Sub-Section (2-C) of Section 44 of the Andhra Pradesh W.P.Nos.36403 & 38178 of 2022

Forest Act, 1967 for holding that confiscation of vehicle involved in

illicit transport of forest produce is not sustainable if the owner proves

that the transportation was done without his knowledge, connivance or

consent though his agent or driver is found culpable.

8. Section 44 of the Telangana Forest Act, 1967 reads as under:

"44. Seizure of property liable to confiscation and procedure thereupon:-- (1) Where there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any timber or forest produce, such timber, or forest produce, together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles and cattle used in committing any such offence may be seized by any forest officer or police officer.

(2) Every officer seizing any property under this section shall place on such property or the receptacle, if any, in which it is contained, a mark indicating that the same has been so seized and shall, except where the offender agrees in writing forthwith to get the offence compounded, without any unreasonable delay, either produce the property seized before an officer not below the rank of an Assistant Conservator of Forests authorised by the Government in this behalf by notification (hereinafter referred to as the authorised officer) or make a report of such seizure to the Magistrate:

Provided that where the timber or forest produce with respect to which such offence is believed to have been committed is the property of the Central or State Government and the offender is not known, it shall be sufficient if the officer makes, as soon as may be, a report of the circumstances to the Divisional Forest Officer.

W.P.Nos.36403 & 38178 of 2022

(2-A) Where an authorised officer seizes under sub-section (1) any timber or forest produce or where any such timber or forest produce is produced before him under sub-section (2) and he is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed, in respect thereof, he may order confiscation of the timber or forest produce so seized or produced together with all tools, ropes, chains, boats or vehicles used in committing such offence.

(2-B) No order of confiscating any property shall be made under sub-section (2-A) unless the person from whom the property is seized is given,-

(a) a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate such property;

(b) an opportunity of making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the grounds for confiscation; and

(c) a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter.

(2-C) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (2-B), no order of confiscation under sub-section (2-A) of any tool, rope, chain, boat or vehicle shall be made if the owner thereof proves to the satisfaction of the authorised officer that it was used in carrying the property without his knowledge or connivance or the knowledge or connivance of his agent, if any, or the person in charge of the tool, rope, chain, boat or vehicle in committing the offence and that each of them had taken all reasonable and necessary precautions against such use.

W.P.Nos.36403 & 38178 of 2022

(2-D) Any forest officer not below the rank of a Conservator of Forests empowered by the Government in this behalf by notification, may within thirty days from the date of the order of confiscation by the authorised officer under sub-section (2-A) either suo motu or on application call for and examine the record of that order and may make such inquiry or cause such inquiry to be made and pass such orders as he may think fit:

Provided that no order, prejudicial to any person, shall be passed without giving him an opportunity of being heard.

(2-E) Any person aggrieved by an order passed under sub- section (2-A) or sub-section (2-D) may, within thirty days from the date of communication to him of such order, appeal to the District Court having jurisdiction over the area in which the property has been seized, and the District Court shall after giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, pass such order as it may think fit and the order of the District Court so passed shall be final.

(3) Any forest officer not below the rank of a Forester, who or whose subordinate has seized any tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehicles or cattle under sub-section (1) and where he makes a report of such seizure to the Magistrate under sub-section (2) may release the same on the execution by the owner thereof a bond for the production of the property so released, if and when so required before the magistrate.

(4) Upon the receipt of any report under sub-section (2), the magistrate shall, except where the offence is compounded, take such measures as may be necessary for the trial of the accused and the disposal of the property according to law.

W.P.Nos.36403 & 38178 of 2022

(5) The property seized under this section, shall be kept in the custody of the forest officer not below the rank of a Forest Guard or the Village Headman until the compensation for compounding the offence is paid or until an order of the magistrate directing its disposal is received."

Thus, Sub-section (2-C) provides an exemption clause from the rigors of

Sub-section (1), if the owner proves his innocence or ignorance of

committing the forest offence. In this case, admittedly the forest land

ploughed by the petitioners is adjacent to the land of the petitioner No.2,

and it was claimed that the petitioner No.1 was not aware of the said

boundaries and they transgressed into the forest land by mistake. This

stand of the petitioners that there is a common boundary is not rebutted

by the forest officials.

9. In the above judgment, the rationale laid down is that if the owner

proves that he was not aware of the circumstances leading to violation of

the Forest Act and in committing the forest offence, he can be excused

and the provisions of Section 44 need not be applied.