Ram Surat Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.01.2014 passed by the Authorised Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer in Confiscation Case No. 20 of 2013 followed by Appellate order dated 30.07.2015 passed by the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Rohtas in Confiscation Appeal Case No. 64 of 2014 and also the order dated 24.03.2017 passed in Forest Revision Case No.43 of 2015 by the Principal Secretary, Environment and Forest Department by which the earlier two orders have been upheld.

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.17923 of 2017 dt.05-08-2025 2/5

¶21

It is the case of the petitioner that on 26.02.2013 tractor bearing Registration No.BR-03G-6940 and trailor bearing No. BR.03G-6941 were seized by forest employees loaded with logs of Mango and logs of Mahua timbers which were alleged to be brought from Protected Forest Area. Copy of the seizure report was sent but learned Judicial Magistrate, Vikramganj and to the Authorised Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Rohtas Forest Division. Subsequently, a confiscation proceeding bearing Confiscation Case No.20 of 2013 was initiated under Section 52(3) of Indian Forest (Bihar Amendment, 1990) Act, 1927 and notice was issued to the petitioner. Petitioner participated in the said proceeding and filed his reply. The said confiscation proceeding culminated in passing of the impugned order dated 25.01.2014 passed by the Divisional Forest Officer, Rohtas Forest Division in which it was held that forest produce, I,e., logs of Mango and logs of Mahua timbers were illegally brought from Protected Forest Area. Being aggrieved by this, the petitioner had challenged this order by filing an appeal before the District Magistrate-cumCollector, Rohtas vide Confiscation Appeal No.64 of 2014 in which final order was passed on 30.07.2015 upholding the order of the Authorised Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Rohtas Forest Division om 30.07.2015. Finally, the petitioner had

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.17923 of 2017 dt.05-08-2025 3/5

¶23

challenged both these orders for filing a revision case before the Principal Secretary, Environment and Forest Department vide Forest Revision Case No.43 of 2015 in which final order was passed on 24.03.2017 upholding the previous two orders.

¶24

The contention of the petitioner is that the logs of Mango and logs of Mahua timbers were being grown on the rayati land of one Suresh Dubey bearing Khata No.815, plot No.2037 area 15 decimal and that it was not being brought from Protected Forest Area. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as on 26.02.2013, the logs of Mango and logs of Mahua timbers were outside the definition of forest produce and, therefore, the entire seizure which has laid to the confiscation of the vehicle is illegal and without jurisdiction. There is specific averment in paragraph 5 of the writ application with regard to the logs of Mango and logs of Mahua timbers being grown on rayati land of one Suresh Dubey. In this regard, paragraph 5 of the writ application is quoted hereinbelow for needful :-

¶25

“5. That the owner of the seized timber in question, namely, Suresh Dubey of village Lahthan, P.S.Agion, Prakhand-Piro, District – Rohtas had obtained valid permission from the Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Lahthan for cutting 15 pieces of Mango tree and 10 pieces of Mahua tree which were grown in his raiyati land Khata No.815 plot No.2037 area 15 decimals. In this

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.17923 of 2017 dt.05-08-2025 4/5

¶27

connection valid transit permit to that effect was issued by the concerned Gram Panchayat for carrying the same to the nearby Saw Mill.”

¶28

The fact that these timbers were grown on the rayati land has not been denied or controverted by the respondent-State in their counter affidavit.

¶29

Upon careful perusal of the impugned orders, i.e., the order passed by the Division Forest Officer dated 25.01.2014 (Annexure 3), Appellate Order dated 30.07.2015 (Annexure-4) and final order passed in Revision Case No. 43 of 2015 (Annexure-5) dated 24.03.2017, it is clear that the logs of Mango and logs of Mahua timbers were alleged to be brought from Protected Forest Area, however, there is no iota of evidence on record which can even remotely suggest that the logs of Mango and logs of Mahua timbers were being brought from Protected Forest Area. Since the seizure was done by the forest employees alleging that it was brought from Protected Forest Area, therefore, the onus was on the forest employees to prove and establish that the timber were being brought from Protected Forest Area. In absence of any material to establish the same, the vehicles belonging to the petitioner could not have been seized and confiscated.

¶30

Patna High Court CWJC No.17923 of 2017 dt.05-08-2025 5/5

¶31

Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the three orders, i.e, the order dated 25.01.2014 (Annexure-3), order dated 30.07.2015 (Annexure-4) and order dated 24.03.2017 (Annexure5) are set aside and the respondents authorities are directed to release two vehicles, i.e, tractor bearing Registration No.BR-03G6940 and trailor bearing No.BR.03G-6941 belonging to the petitioner within 15 days from the date of production of a copy of this order.

¶32

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the present writ application is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

¶33

(Alok Kumar Sinha, J)

¶34

sanjeev/-

¶35

AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date Transmission Date

Ram Surat Singh v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Surat Singh v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Umesh Kumar Sinha Vs The State of Bihar

Abhishek Kumar Jain Vs The State of Bihar

Yogendra Ray Vs The State of Bihar

Prakash Mashala Mil Vs The State of Bihar

Surendra Singh Vs The Additional Chief Secretary (Acs)

Siyaram Singh Vs The State of Bihar through The Addtional Chief Secretary (Acs)