Allowed

Janki Devi Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC13 Sept 2023WPCR/247/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed a writ petition filed by an owner of a tractor whose vehicle was confiscated for transporting sand excavated from a drain. The Court held that sand is not included in the definition of forest produce under the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders quashed; confiscation declared illegal; vehicle with trolley to be handed over to petitioner within 15 days.

Janki Devi Agrawal Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPCR No. 247 of 2022

¶5

Janki Devi Agrawal W/o Mohan Agrawal Aged About 51 Years R/o Village Rengakhar, Post And P.S. Rengakhar, Tahsil Bodla, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest, Govt. Of Chhattisgarh Mahanadi Bhavan, P.O. Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶9

The Appellate Authority and Chief Conservator of Forest Forest Circle Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶10

The Competent Authority / Sub Divisional Officer (Forest) Sahaspur Lohara, Forest Division Kawardha, District Kabirdham Chhattisgarh.

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

(Cause Title taken from Case Information System)

¶13

For petitioner : Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Addl. Adv . General

¶14

Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶15

Hon’ble Mr. N.K. Chandravanshi, Judge

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶18

13-9-2023

¶19

With the consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for

¶20

final hearing itself.

¶21

¶22

The petitioner has sought following relief(s) in this Writ Petition:-

¶23

“A. That, the Hon’ble High Court may kindly be pleased to call the entire records of the case for its kind perusal, in the ends of justice.

¶24

B. That, the Hon'ble High Court may be kind enough to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing/setting aside the impugned order dated 05.01.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Durg District- Durg (C.G.) in Cr. Revision No. 89/2021 (Ann. P-1) and the impugned order dated 12.03.2021 passed by the respondent No. 2/ The Appellate Authority (Ann. P-2) and order dated 30.07.2020 (Ann. P-3) passed by the Respondent No. 3, in Forest Crime Case No. 16052/04, by which the vehicle of the petitioner i.e. Arjun- Mahendra Tractor with Trolley; bearing registration No. C.G. 07-N/4303 and C.G. 07-N/4304 (Registration Number of trolley is not mentioned in any of the impugned orders) respectively, has been confiscated, with its documents, with their effects and consequences, in the ends of justice.

¶25

¶26

C. That, the Hon'ble High Court may most kindly be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate nature declaring the confiscation of the vehicle of the petitioner i.e. Arjun-Mahendra Tractor with Trolley; bearing registration No. C.G. 07-N/4303 and C.G. 07-N/4304 (Registration Number of trolley is not mentioned in any of the impugned orders) respectively, along with its documents, as illegal, in the ends of justice.

¶27

D. Any other alternative/additional relief, which the Hon'ble High Court thinks fit, proper and just may also be granted to the petitioner in the interest of justice.”

¶28

The facts of the present case are that on 10-4-2020, forest officials were on patrolling duty; during patrolling, at around 09:30 A.M., they saw that the offending vehicle i.e. ArjunMahendra Tractor with Trolley bearing registration No. C.G. 07N/4303 and C.G. 07- N/4304 respectively (hereinafter referred to as 'offending vehicle') was excavating and transporting sand from surface of a Nalla (drain). On inquiry, the driver of offending vehicle told the forest officials that owner of the offending vehicle namely, Mohan Lal Agrawal (ie. the husband of the present petitioner) has told them to excavate the 'sand'

¶29

¶30

from the drain. Thereafter, the forest authorities went to the said spot of the drain from where the sand was excavated and found that, a huge pit made due to extraction of sand was there in the drain , thereafter, the forest authorities lodged an offence bearing No. 16052/04 dated 10.04.2020 and seized the said offending vehicle and other articles i.e. 04 units of spade and other articles, in front of witnesses. After completing all the necessary proceedings, the Sub- Divisional Officer (Forest), confiscated the offending vehicle vide impugned order dated 30.07.2020 in Forest Crime Case NO. 16052/04. The petitioner being aggrieved of the said order, filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority/Respondent No. 2 and the Respondent No. 2 vide its order dated 12.03.2021 (Annexure P-2) affirmed the order of the Respondent No.3 and dismissed the appeal of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the learned Sessions Judge, Dist. Kabirdham by filing revision against orders passed by the Respondents No. 2 & 3 and the learned Sessions Judge vide its impugned order dated 05.01.2022 in Cr. Revision No. 89/2021 dismissed the revision application of the petitioner and hence, the petitioner has preferred this petition.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the prosecution could not prove that the sand which was being transported in the tractor by the petitioner was scheduled forest produce according to Section 2 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927

¶32

¶33

and he has already deposited fine of Rs.7,701/-, therefore, he cannot be punished twice for the same offence, thus, he would pray to allow this petition and quash the order passed by the learned Sessions Court in Criminal Revision No. 89/2021 dated 5-1-2022, order dated 12-3-2021 passed by the respondent No. 2/ the Appellate Authority (Annexure P-2) and the order dated 30-7-2020 passed by respondent No. 3/the Competent Authority (Annexure P-3) by which the offending tractor and trolley have been confiscated.

¶34

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that the petitioner was transporting illegal forest produce from the scheduled forest area and was caught red handed. He submits that earlier also, the petitioner was involved in the same offence and fine was imposed on her. He would further submit that due procedure has been followed as envisaged under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. He would further submit that according to Section 35(1)(c)(ii) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, which provides for Protection of forests for special purposes, the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, regulate or prohibit in any forest or waste-land, for the preservation of the soil on the ridges and slopes and in the valleys of hilly treks, the prevention of landslips or of the formation of ravines, and torrents, or the protection of land against erosion, or the deposit thereon of sand, stones or gravel

¶35

¶36

and according to Section 2(4) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 which defines “forest-produce”, sand is one of the forest produces. Thus, there is no infirmity in the orders passed by the Forest Officials as well as the order passed by learned Sessions Court in Criminal Revision No. 89/2021.

¶37

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the instant petition.

¶38

Section 2(4) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 defines “forestproduce” and same is reproduced herein below:-

¶39

“(4) “forest-produce” includes–

¶40

(a) the following whether found in, or brought from, a forest or not, that is to say – timber, charcoal, caoutchouc, catechu, wood-oil, resin, natural varnish, bark, lac, mahua flowers, mahua seeds, kuth and myrabolams, and

¶41

(b) the following when found in, or brought from a forest, that is to say-

¶42

(i) trees and leaves, flowers and fruits, and all other parts or produce not hereinbefore mentioned, of trees,

¶43

(ii) plants not being trees (including grass, creepers, reeds and moss), and all parts or produce of such plants,

¶44

¶45

(iii) wild animals and skins, tusks, horns, bones, silk, cocoons, honey and wax, and all other parts or produce of animals, And

¶46

(iv) peat, surface soil, rock and minerals (including lime-stone, laterite, mineral oils, and all products of mines or quarries).

¶47

In the aforesaid Section, ‘sand’, which was seized from the tractor- trolley of the petitioner, is not included as one of the forest produces. Section 2(4)(b)(iv) includes peat, surface soil, rock and minerals, but it does not include ‘sand’. Likewise, Section 35(1)(c)(ii) says that the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, regulate or prohibit in any forest or waste-land, for the preservation of the soil on the ridges and slopes and in the valleys of hilly treks, the prevention of landslips or of the formation of ravines, and torrents, or the protection of land against erosion, or the deposit thereon of sand, stones or gravel, but, this section also does not include ‘sand’.

¶48

There is no allegation that the petitioner was transporting soil from ridges and slopes or rock or minerals from scheduled forest area. It is the case of forest department that the petitioner was transporting sand which was excavated from nalla (drain). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already deposited fine of Rs. 7,701/- and she cannot be punished twice for same offence, therefore, the order passed by

¶49

¶50

the learned Sessions Court in Criminal Revision No. 89/2021 dated 5-1-2022, order dated 12-3-2021 passed by the respondent No. 2/ the Appellate Authority (Annexure P-2) and the impugned order dated 30-7-2020 passed by respondent No. 3/the Competent Authority (Annexure P-3) are hereby set aside. The Forest Officers are directed to handover the ArjunMahendra Tractor with Trolley; bearing registration No. C.G. 07N/4303 and C.G. 07-N/4304 to the petitioner forthwith preferably within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶51

With the aforesaid observation(s) and direction(s), this writ petition is allowed.

¶52

It is made clear that if the petitioner is again found indulged in such activity, then the respondent/authorities will be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

¶53

Sd/Sd/-

¶54

(N.K. Chandravanshi) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶55

Pathak/

Janki Devi Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Janki Devi Agrawal v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balraj Makhija Vs Shiv Ram Allu Bhandar And Anr.

Smt. Gayatri Dewangan Vs Dharmendra Dewangan and Ors.

Mohit Agarwal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Triveni Verma Vs Domar Singh Counhan

Shakti Singh Vs Dhenu Bag Yadav

Chhattisgarh Sayunkt Kisan Morcha Vs State of Chhattisgarh