Allowed

P.Gurunathan v. Divisional Forest Officer, Munnar.

Kerala HC9 Jul 2013WP(C)/13248/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that the petitioner, owner of an earth remover used for road construction without knowledge it was on forest land, was not liable. Confiscation proceedings are quashed, and the vehicle is to be returned against submission of title deeds.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order directing confiscation of the vehicle and directed its return to the petitioner against submission of title deeds.

P.Gurunathan Vs Divisional Forest Officer, Munnar. — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF JULY 2013/18TH ASHADHA, 1935

¶5

WP(C).No. 13248 of 2007 (B)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

P. GURUNATHAN, 22/40, MARAPPALAM ROAD, KARUGAPALAYM, ERODE, TAMIL NADU.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.DEEPU THANKAN.

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, MUNNAR.

¶11

2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, IDUKKI.

¶12

BY SPL. GOVT. PLEADER (FOREST) MR.JAMES KURIAN.

¶13

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09-07-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶14

rs.

¶15

WP(C).No. 13248 of 2007 (B)

¶16

APPENDIX

¶17

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:-

¶18

EXT.P1 COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 18/07/2002 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT WAS CONFISCATE MACHINE TO THE GOVERNMENT.

¶19

EXT.P2 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.M.A. NO.1229/2002 DATED 17/01/2003 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.

¶20

EXT.P3 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.R.P. NO.490/2003 DATED 16/12/2005.

¶21

EXT.P4 COPY OF THE ORDER IN G.O.NO.327/2002/RD DATED 17/10/2002.

¶22

EXT.P5 COPY OF THE ORDER IN G.O. NO.328/2002/RD DATED 17/10/2005.

¶23

EXT.P6 COPY OF THE ORDER OF CONFISCATION OF THE EARTH REMOVER TO THE GOVERNMENT DATED 06/05/2006.

¶24

EXT.P7 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN C.M.A. NO.42/2006 DATED 22/08/2006.

¶25

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE.

rs.

B.P. Ray, J.

====================================

¶31

W.P.(C)No.13248/2007

¶32

====================================

¶33

Dated this the 9^th day of July, 2013.

¶34

JUDGMENT

¶35

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special

¶36

Government Pleader for Forests Sri.James Kurian.

¶37

Petitioner has filed this writ petition with the following prayers:

¶38

“i) call for the records leading to Exts.P6 and P7 and issue a writ of certiorari quashing the same;

¶39

ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction commanding the respondents to drop the confiscation proceedings initiated against the petitioner; iii) stay all further proceedings for confiscations of the earth remover (Hyundai Rolex – 55.3 earth mover with engine No.12383 and Chasis No.MCO 3.GJ 11159) belonging to the petitioner;

¶40

iv) such other writ, order or direction which this Honourable Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of this case.”

¶41

Petitioner is the owner of a Hundai Rolex 55-3 earth remover with

¶42

Engine No.12383 and Chasis No.MCO 3.GJ.11159. Petitioner, a

¶43

W.P.(C)No.13248/2007 -:2:-

¶44

native of Erode District, Tamil Nadu and the owner of the aforementioned earth remover had purchased the same after availing a loan of `14.45 lakhs from Tamil Nadu Industrial Investment Corporation Ltd, which was hypothecated to the Corporation. Petitioner had challenged the impugned order passed by the first respondent and confirmed by the District Judge on the ground that neither he nor his driver had knowledge that the land was a forest land. It is the admitted case of the parties that the Panchayat was constructing a road which was entrusted to one German Tomy who was executing the work and one Ashraf has taken the vehicle on hire from the petitioner. The vehicle was being used for construction of the road and in the process of construction, some trees were uprooted by the machine. Therefore, the forest officials has seized vehicle.

¶45

The finding of both the Forums is that the land from which the trees

¶46

were uprooted is a deemed reserve forest within the meaning of Kerala Forest Act and therefore, the confiscation proceeding is maintainable. The petitioner has examined his driver in support of

¶47

W.P.(C)No.13248/2007 -:3:-

¶48

his contention that he had no knowledge of the commission of forest

¶49

offence. No material has been produced by the forest officials to show that the owner of the offending vehicle had knowledge that his vehicle was being used for commission of forest offence. The Range Officer of the locality who has initiated the forest confiscation proceedings and filed the offence report against the petitioner has no whisper with regard to the knowledge and connivance of the petitioner about the alleged of commission of forest offence. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, I hold that the petitioner had no knowledge that his vehicle was being used for commission of forest offence. Accordingly, the impugned order directing confiscation of the vehicle is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The title deeds furnished as a principal condition for release of the vehicle shall be given to the petitioner.

¶50

B.P. Ray, Judge.

¶51

sl.

P.Gurunathan v. Divisional Forest Officer, Munnar.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Gurunathan v. Divisional Forest Officer, Munnar.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yaliakkal Industrial Enterprises Vs Union of India

P.Jaya Vs State of Kerala

Haji Odakkal Kunhi Mohammed Vs S.I.of Police, Karuvarankundu

Fr.P.C.Simon, Manager Vs State of Kerala

P.v.Subramanian Vs State of Kerala

Leela and Another Vs the Chairman, K.S.E.B and Another