Disposed

M/s Subham Build Con And Anr. v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC15 Jan 2025WPC/1739/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contractor's plant, vehicles and machinery were seized by forest authorities while constructing a dam under a Water Resources Department work order in reserved forest land without forest approval. The Court quashed the confiscation orders and directed return of seized items, leaving compensation to be sought through a civil suit.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/s Subham Build Con And Anr. Vs State Of… — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

2025:CGHC:2845

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 1739 of 2013

¶6

1 - M/s Subham Build Con, a registered partnership firm, Mata Kripa, Sadar Bazar, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar.

¶7

2 - Sourabh Nathani S/o Shri A.K. Nathani Aged About 25 Years Partner Of M/s Subham Build Con And R/o Mata Kripa, Sadar Bazar, Bhatapara, Distt. Baloda Bazar, Civil And Revenue Distt. Baloda Bazar C.G., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh

¶8

...Petitioners

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Water Resources Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur C.G., Chhattisgarh

¶11

2 - The Executive Engineer Water Resources Division, Korba, Distt. Korba C.G., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶12

3 - State Of C.G. Through The Secretary, Department Of Forest, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur C.G., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

4 - The Divisional Forest Officer Korba Forest Division, Korba C.G., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶14

5 - The Sub Divisional Officer Forest Forest Sub Division North Korba, Korba C.G., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶15

---- Respondents

¶16

For Petitioners : Mr. Sandeep Shrivastava, Advocate along with Ms. Arya Shrivastava and Mr. Rakesh Manikpuri, Advocates. For State : Mr. Lav Kumar Sharma, P.L.

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶18

-2-

¶19

16.01.2025

¶20

1. The petitioners have filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-

¶21

“a. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do issue calling for the records of the case pertaining to the petitioners from the respondents concerned for its kind perusal.

¶22

b. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do issue directing the respondent authorities to constitute a Committee of two wings of the State Government ie. Water Resources Department and Forest Department, so that coordination between the two wings of the State may be taken place and not only the dispute between them with regard to incomplete construction of 'Karumoha Tank Project may be resolved but also the plant and machineries of the petitioners lying with the respondent No.3 may be released as the same have been seized for carrying out the work of the respondent No.1-Water Resources Department.

¶23

c. A writ and/or an order in the nature of writ of mandamus do issue directing the State Government to pay reasonable compensation, as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court for unnecessary seizure / confiscation etc. by the Forest Department of the State for the reason that for carrying the work of one wing of the State, the another wing of the State had seized the petitioners' plant and machineries and not allowing the petitioners to use and enjoy it for the last more than four years.

¶24

d. A writ and/or an order may be passed to the effect of constituting a committee by this Hon'ble Court itself of the competent persons for resolution of the said dispute between the parties and for necessary orders for doing complete justice with the parties.

¶25

d (i) A writ and/or an order in the nature of a writ of certiorari do issue quashing the order dated 22.01.2016 (Annexure P-7) confirming the order dated 24.01.2015 (Annexure P-6) and in effect directing the state authorities to dispose of the plant and machineries illegally/unauthorisedly seized by the respondent department of forest and replace the same to the petitioners by same plant and machineries and suitable compensation/damages suffered by the petitioners for the acts of formation and Commission on the part of the respondent authorities.

¶26

According to order on amendment application dated 20.09.2024:

¶27

d (ii) That it is prayed before this Hon'ble Court that the order dated 13.09.2013 passed by the authorized authority may kindly be quashed along with the orders dated 24.01.2015 (Annexure P- 6 in the main petition) and 22.01.2016 (Annexure P-7 in the main petition).

¶28

¶29

Furthermore, the Petitioner wants to add in the prayer clause that the confiscated vehicles and machineries have become junk and scrap as of now rendering them useless, therefore the compensation according to the present values of the vehicle and machinery may kindly be granted to the Petitioner from the date of realisation of the payment with interest.

¶30

e. Any other relief in the discretion of this Hon’ble Court.

¶31

f. Cost of the petition may also be awarded.”

¶32

2. Petitioner No.1 is a partnership firm duly registered under the relevant provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. A tender was invited by respondent No.1 through respondent No.2 for the construction of the ‘Karumoha Tank Project’. Petitioner No.1/Firm participated in the tender process and was declared successful. The work order was issued on 22.12.2007. The petitioners started work pursuant to the work order for the construction of work in bands ch 0 to ch 9 to ch 22; the earthwork in the excavation of the puddle cut-off trench, puddle and cut-off filling, construction of boulder to seepage drain, filter blanket, pitching and construction of head sluice and weast wier excavation of spill channel. A map was also provided along with the work order. The construction of the dam was proposed within a forest area. A proposal was sent by the Water Resources Department to the concerned Divisional Forest Officer, Korba for the grant of permission, but it was still awaited. The petitioners deployed plant, machinery including Pokland L & T Kamasto P.C. 71, Mini Hywa bearing registration No.C.G.12-C-2804; Dumper bearing No.C.G.12-ZC-0256 and 2 numbers of mixture machines with diesel pump. When the petitioners started the construction of the dam, objections were raised by the Forest Department. There were various

¶33

-4-

¶34

correspondences between the Water Resources Department and the Forest Department with regard to the grant of approval. On 5.6.2009, when the machinery and vehicles were deployed by the petitioners for the construction of the dam, the Forest Authorities seized them. The petitioners informed the authorities of the Water Resources Department in this regard but no action was taken. Later on, the contract awarded to the petitioners was closed by the Water Resources Department. The petitioners made various representations before the Forest Officers for the release of the vehicles, plant and machinery. The authorized authority i.e. the Divisional Forest Officer vide order dated 13.9.2013, passed an order of confiscation. The order was challenged by the petitioners before the Conservator of Forest by filing an appeal, which was dismissed vide order dated 24.1.2015. Thereafter, the petitioners challenged the order by filing Criminal Revision No.47 of 2015, which was dismissed vide order dated 22.1.2016.

¶35

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that there was a dispute between the Water Resources Department and the Forest Department. He would contend that the work order was issued for the construction of a dam. The petitioners deployed the machinery, vehicles and plant at earmarked place but the forest officials seized the vehicles in contravention of the work order issued by the Water Resources Department. He would contend that the Water Resources Department ought to have taken prior permission from the Forest Department and for the mistake committed by the Water Resources Department, the petitioners cannot be penalized. He would further submit that the Forest Range Officer - S.K.

¶36

¶37

Jaiswal, in his evidence before the authorized officer, admitted that the vehicles were deployed by the petitioners in accordance with the work order and the map issued by the Water Resources Department. He would also submit that this is not a case where the petitioners knowingly deployed vehicles, machinery and plants in the forest area without authority. Therefore, the orders passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Conservator of Forest and the learned Sessions Court are liable to be quashed.

¶38

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners. He would submit that since the petitioners had deployed machinery, vehicles and plants in the forest area, specifically “ Chote-Bade Jhad ke Jungle ”, the action was taken by the Forest Authority, and the vehicles were seized. He would further submit that the order of confiscation was passed after affording the due opportunity of hearing. He would also submit that a show-cause notice was issued, witnesses were examined, and thereafter, a final order was passed by the authorized officer with regard to confiscation. He would contend that the findings recorded by the authorized officer have been affirmed by the Appellate Authority and by the learned Sessions Court, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶39

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record.

¶40

6. Admittedly, the work order was issued in favour of the petitioners for the construction of a dam over ch 0 to ch 9 to ch 22 on 22.12.2007. It appears that there was a dispute between the Water

¶41

-6-

¶42

Resources Department and Forest Department, and according to the Forest Department, the work order was issued in favour of petitioner No.1. The petitioners deployed machinery, vehicles and plant at the earmarked place according to the map provided by the Water Resources Department. However, that part was within the reserved forest area and as such, the forest authority took action and seized the vehicles, machinery and plant of the petitioners. Although the forest authorities acted within their jurisdiction, no approval had been granted by the higher forest officers for the construction of the dam. It is also an admitted fact that the officers of the Water Resources Department made various communications with the Forest Department, but no approval was granted, and the work of constructing the dam continued pursuant to the work order dated 22.12.2007.

¶43

7. The Forest Range Officer, S.K. Jaiswal, in his evidence before the Forest officer, categorically admitted that the machinery was deployed by the petitioners pursuant to the work order issued by the Water Resources Department. This witness further admitted that, since there was no approval from the Forest Department for the construction of the dam, the machinery, plant and vehicles of the petitioners were seized. Thus, it is crystal clear from the evidence of S.K. Jaiswal that the petitioners did not deploy the vehicles, machinery and plants in contravention of the work order, and they were excavating soil, etc., within the area described in the work order and the appended map.

¶44

8. Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, the order passed by the Forest Officer with regard to the confiscation dated

¶45

¶46

13.9.2013, the order passed by the Conservator of Forests dated 24.1.2015, and the order passed by the learned Sessions Court dated 22.1.2016 are hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to hand over the machinery, plants, vehicles, or any articles seized from the site belonging to the petitioners forthwith.

¶47

9. With regard to compensation, the petitioners shall be at liberty to take recourse to law by filing a civil suit etc.

¶48

10. The petition is disposed of accordingly.

¶49

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶50

Nimmi

M/s Subham Build Con And Anr. v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/s Subham Build Con And Anr. v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Kumar Jain Vs Indusind Bank Limited

Anita Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd.

Kamlesh Kumar Sahu Vs South Eastern Coalfield Limited

Grihum Housing Finance Limited Vs G. Krishna Muti

Juthan Ram Rajwade Vs Jamuna Prasad Rajwade

Sanjay Kumar Das Vs Meena Das