Disposed

Rajesh Agarwal v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC4 Dec 2020WP(C)/25302/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of conflicting writ petitions regarding the seizure of an excavator used for quarrying. Holding that deletion of Section 57 bars interim release during confiscation, the Court directed the Authorized Officer to dispose of the case within three months while seeking cooperation from forest and revenue authorities. Compensation was dismissed for lack of prayer.

What did the court decide?

Direct discharge of the Authorized Officer to decide the confiscation case within 3 months; direction to revenue and forest officials to cooperate; prayer for compensation denied.

Rajesh Agarwal Vs State of Odisha — Environment and Pollution | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 25302 of 2020

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 25302 of 2020 & W.P.(C) No. 3901 of 2019

¶3

04.12.2020 Due to outbreak of COVID-19, this matter is taken up through Video Conferencing.

¶4

Heard Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Suman Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-opp. parties.

¶5

In W.P.(C) No. 3901 of 2019, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the opposite No.4-Assistant Conservator of Forest, Dalijoda Forest range to release the Tata Hitachi Excavator bearing No. M/c No.S200054728 in favour of the petitioner by quashing the seizure dated 08.12.2018 as at Annexure-2.

¶6

Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-Company has hired a Tata Excavator, as aforesaid, on monthly rent basis @ Rs.1,50,000/- per month for extraction of Morrum from the leasehold area of Morrum quarry situated over plot no. 1067, khata No. 471 with an area of Ac. 4.000dec. in mouza- Achutabasanta in the District of

¶7

Jajpur granted in its favour under the provisions of Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 2016, which is required for its Haridaspur-Paradeep Railway Project. It is his submission that pursuant to an application made by the petitioner-Company, a quarry lease was

¶8

¶9

granted in favour of the petitioner-Company for a consideration of Rs.5,54,178/- and on depositing the said amount, quarry permit was issued in favour of the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner was extracting Morrum by using the aforesaid Excavator. But, to the misfortune of the petitioner, the Excavator of the petitioner-Company was seized by the opposite party No.4–Assistant Conservator Forest Dalijoda Forest Range on 08.12.2018 (Annexure-2) on the plea that it had entered the Asia-Charinangal Proposed Reserve Forest (PRF) without valid permission. Although the petitioner has made an application for release of the Excavator, the same was not considered, for which he has filed the aforesaid writ petition.

¶10

Consequent to the seizure of the Excavator, the opposite party No.4-Assistant Conservator Forest, Dalijoda Forest Range submitted offence report in OR Case No. 201 D 2018-19 in respect of the said Excavator under Section 56 of the Odisha Forest Act, 1972 (for short, ‘the Act’), basing upon which Confiscation Case No.73 of 2018-19 has been initiated and is pending before the Authorized Officer-cumConservator of Forest, Cuttack Forest Division, Cuttack. Hence, he has filed W.P.(C) No.25302 of 2020 for early disposal of the said Confiscation Proceeding. 6. Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that due to the inter-departmental

¶11

¶12

dispute of the Govt. of Odisha with regard to boundary of the PRF vis-à-vis the area of the quarry lease granted in favour of the petitioner-Company, the petitioner-Company is made to suffer. Due to the illegal seizure of the Excavator, the petitioner is suffering huge loss every day. It is lying open to the vagaries of the nature and the petitioner has to pay the rent without utilizing it for the purpose for which it has hired the same. He also submits that the quarry lease was not within the boundary of the aforesaid PRF and the Assistant Conservator of Forest, without paying any heed to the requests of the Tahasildar, Darapan, Additional District Magistrate as well as the Collector, Jajpur to release the Excavator, is bent upon to confiscate the same. Due to inter-departmental dispute, the petitioner is made to suffer without any fault of his. In the meantime, it has paid a sum of Rs.36,00,000/- for hiring the Excavator. He, therefore prays for the aforesaid relief.

¶13

Mrs. Pattnaik, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand, submits that the Excavator was seized when it was parked within the boundary of PRF. Thus, the Conservator of Forest has done no wrong in initiating the confiscation proceeding. Since the Excavator has entered the PRF boundary without a valid permit, the same is liable to be confiscated.

¶14

¶15

7.1 Although sufficient opportunity was given to the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 [in W.P.(C) No.3901 of 2019] to file counter affidavit, they preferred not to respond to the same. Thus, in terms of the order dated 30.04.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No.3901 of 2019, this Court proceeds with hearing of the matter.

¶16

Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that in view of deletion of Section 57 of the Odisha Forest Act, 1972, interim release of the vehicle during pendency of the confiscation proceeding is not permissible. It however prima facie appears that due to callousness of the Tahasildar, Darpan-opposite party No.3 [in W.P.(C) No.3901 of 2019], the petitioner is made to suffer. Had the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 filed counter affidavit in W.P.(C) No.3901 of 2019, it might have thrown some light as to the steps taken by them in this regard. But, in absence of their counter affidavit, adverse inference has to be drawn against them, more particularly against the Tahasildar, Darpan.

¶17

After going through the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that as well as the nature of dispute involved, interest of justice will be best served, if the Confiscation Case No.73 of 2018-19 pending before the Authorized Officer-cum-Asst. Conservator of

¶18

¶19

Forest Cuttack, Forest Division, Cuttack-opposite party No.6 [in W.P.(C) No.25302 of 2020] is disposed of early. It is, therefore, directed that the Authorized Officercum-Asst. Conservator of Forest Cuttack Forest Division, Cuttack shall do well to consider and dispose of the Confiscation Case No.73 of 2018-19, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of thee months from the date of production of an authenticated copy of this order, giving opportunity of haring to the parties concerned. As the matter revolves around a dispute with regard to the boundary of the PRF vis-à-vis the leasehold area of the petitioner-company, the Tahasildar, Darpanopposite party No.3 as well as the Additional District Magistrate, Jajpur-opposite party No.2 are directed to cooperate with the Authorized Officer for just disposal of the Confiscation Proceeding.

¶20

9.1 At this stage, Mr. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to negligence, callousness and indifferent attitude of the Tahasildar, Darpan as well as the arbitrary action of the forest officials the petitioner-Company has suffered a huge loss. Hence, it is entitled to compensation.

¶21

The prayer for compensation cannot be entertained, as no such prayer is made in either of the writ petitions. Therefore, it is open to the petitioner to

¶22

¶23

realize the compensation, if any in accordance with law.

¶24

With the aforesaid observation and direction, both the wit petitions are disposed of.

¶25

11.1 Authenticated copy of this order downloaded from the website of this Court shall be treated at par with certified copy in the manner prescribed in this Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.

¶26

..………………………….

¶27

K.R. Mohapatra, J.

¶28

bct

Rajesh Agarwal v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Agarwal v. State of Odisha

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

Laxmidhar Padhiary Vs Dasarathi Padhiary

Akshaya Behera Vs Dhirendra Jata

Jitendra Majhi Vs State of Odisha

Arss Infrastructure Project Ltd. Vs Collector and District Magistrate,Jajpur

Anil Kumar Bhuyan Vs State of Odisha

Suresh Kumar Barik Vs Govt. of Odisha