Allowed

Sri. Manja Narsing and another v. The State of Telangana and 3 others

Telangana HC28 Dec 2022WP/22272/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed two writ petitions challenging confiscation orders under the Telangana Forest Act for two tractors used in ploughing land encroaching on forest boundaries. The Court held that where owners prove they were unaware of the offence due to boundary ignorance, confiscation under Section 44 is unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Confiniscation orders set aside and vehicles released to petitioners.

Sri. Manja Narsing and another Vs The State of… — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2022)

¶1

[^321s ]

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYOERABAD

¶3

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

WEDNESDAY,THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURAALE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶7

WRIT PETITION Nos. 22272 AND 23001 OF 2022

¶8

W.P. NO: 22272 OF 2022

¶9

Between:

¶10

Sri. Manja Narsing, S/o. Mohan Singh, Aged about 31 years, Occ:OwnerCum - Driver, RJo. lr4ombajipet, Lingampet Mandal, Kamareddy District.

¶11

Sri. Manja Jormal, S/o. Nanda, Aged about 56 years, Occ: Agriculture, R/o. Mombajipet, Lingampet Mandal, Kamareddy District.

¶12

...PETITIONERS

¶13

AND

¶14

The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Secretariat BRKR building, Hyderabad.

¶15

The Forest Divisronal Officer, Kamareddy, Kamareddy District

¶16

The Deputy Range Officer, Velluttla, Yellareddy Range, Kamareddy District

¶17

The Chief Conservator of Forests, Nizamabad Circle, Nizamabad.

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the impugned the proceedings of the 4th Respondent in Appeal No.18212022 dl. 08.04.2022 confirming the order of the 2nd respondents proceedings No.1640/2021156 dt. 28.12.2021 in ordering for confiscation of vehicle Tractor bearing No.AP 25 AJ 12OO to the Government as illegal, arbitrary and in violation and against all settled principles of law and also against provisions of Telangana Forest Act and consequently direct the respondent No.2 and 3 to release the Tractor John Deere (Green Color) bearing registration No.AP 25 AJ 1200 (Chassis No.PYS 105073349, Engine No.PY3029D283431) for interim custody to the 1s1 Petitioner

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶21

Petition u rc er S ectir r 1;1 CPC praying that in the carcumstances stated in the affidavit file(^j in :.upr⁽ rt of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respcn( en,^\lo.il a rd 3 to release the Trzictor John Deere (Green Color) bearing relistr,:tior N r.AP 25 AJ 1200 (Chzrssis No.PY5105073349, Engine No.PY3('2\tD2t 1431 cr interim custody to the 1st Petitioner,^pending disposal of the n air V/r.t Pr I ti^rrr

¶22

lA NO: 2 OF 202.2

¶23

Betwee n:

¶24

'l . The St: te of Iilan,t r ], Rep. by its Principal Se:retary, Department of Forest, Srrcret:rriat E R^(R building, Hyderabad,

¶25

2 The Fore: t D li:ior;^, )'ficer, Kamareddy, Kamareddy District 3. The De:u:y Fl.r-ge^{( rf} <:er, Velluttla, Yellareddy tlangc, Kamareddy District

¶26

The Ch ef Cor:ervir :r of Forests, Nizamabad Crrcle, Nizamabad.

¶27

.PETIT'ONEIIS/RESPONDENTS

¶28

¶29

1. Sri. Marrja Nar:irg,^,/, . Mohan Singh, Aged abc,ut 31^years, Occ: OwnerCum - [ rir er, R/r.^{I /} rr rlrajipet, Lingampet Mand:rl, Ka'nareddy District.

¶30

1. Sri. Ma rjr Jcr-ral, '/ Nanda, Aged about 56 years, Occ: Agriculture, Rl/o. Morl,ajitx;l Li^' )z irpet Mandal, Kamareddy Distr ct.

¶31

...RESP()NDE\TS/PETITIONERS

¶32

Petition unle'Serlior 1r^- CPC praying that in tlre circumstances stated in the affidavit filrd n 1;1.pp61 r f the^petition, the High Oourt may be pleased to vacate the interin order,; in \ \o.1 ot 2022 dl.O7 -07 -2C22 a'].d dismiss the Writ Petition W.P.No.22272 c1 20 I I r:; devoid of merits

¶33

W. P. NO: 23001 Ofr 20:l:

¶34

Between:

¶35

Sri. Danavath Rar ru, :,,'o . lt r am, Aged about 55 yea's, O<;c: Agriculture, R:/o. H.No. 5-83, S f^,)olc ny, : ) z ram Village, Nagireddipet Vandal, Kamareddy District.

¶36

..PETITIONER

¶37

AND

¶38

The State of Tr:larg rna i( p. by its Principal Secretaly, Department of Forest, Secr ]t. rial : IRK^: b r lding, Hyderabad.

¶39

2- The Forest Divisional Officer, Kamareddy, District.

¶40

The Deputy Range Offlcer, Velluttla, Yellareddy Range, Kamareddy District.

¶41

The Chief Conservator of Forests, Nizamabad Circle, Nizamabad.

¶42

...RESPONDENTS

¶43

Petition under Anide 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, to declare the proceedings of the 4th respondent in proceedings in Appeal No.75212022 daled 1210412022 confirming the order of 2nd respondent in Proceeding No. 156712021156, dated 28.12.2021 in POR No. 441271 dated 0310512021 in ordering for confiscation of vehicle Tractor bearing No. AP 25 AF 7483 to the Government as illegal, arbitrary and in violation and against all settled principles of law and also against provisions of Telangana Forest Act and consequently set-aside the same

¶44

lA NO: 1 OF 2022

¶45

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondent No.2 and 3 to release the Tractor John Deere (Green Color) bearing registration No. AP 25 AF 7483 (Chassis No. PY51048021477, Engine No.PY3029D274955), for inteflm custody to the Petitioner, pending disposal of the main Writ Petition

¶46

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

¶47

Between:

¶48

The State of Telangana, Rep by its Principal Secretary, Department of Forest, Secretariat BRKR buildi ng, Hyderabad.

¶49

The Forest Divisional Officer, Kamareddy, District.

¶50

The Deputy Range Officer, Velluttla, Yellareddy Range, Kamareddy District.

¶51

The Chief Conservator of Forests, Nizamabad Circle, Nizamabad.

¶52

.PETITIONERSiRESPONDENTS

¶53

AND

¶54

Sri. Danavath Ramu, S/o. Jethram, Aged about 55 years, Occ: Agriculture, Rl/o. H.No. 5-83, ST Colony, Bollaram Village, Nagireddipet lvlandal, Kamareddy District.

¶55

...PETITIONER

¶56

Petition urrdr r S.e:tio r 1^; I CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file< sJr,)or: o the^petition, the High^(lourt may be^pleased to vacate the interirr^',rd,:.; in ! l.lo.1 ol 2022 dl.O7^{-O7 -2'.022} and dismiss the Writ Petition W.P.No..13^{r01 ,rf} 2C'.2 )s devoid of merits

¶57

Counsel for the^)elitiolerr: : 1 . AKKAM ESHWAR Counsel for the ltr:sporr(lerl i:^(;P FOR FORESTS The Court made th r fc'll:,wi^{' y:} OOMMON ORDER

¶58

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI

¶59

WRIT PETITION NO.22272 OF 2022

¶60

AND

¶61

WRIT PETITION NO.2 I F 2022

¶62

COMMON ORDER

¶63

Both the Writ Petitions are filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare the proceedings of respondent No.4 in Appeal No.18212022 dt.08.04.2022 confirming the order ol respondent No.2 in proceedings No.l640l202l/56 dt.28.12.2021 in ordering lor confiscation ol vehicle Tractor bearing No. AP 25 Ai 1200 to the Covernrnent and the proceedings of respondent No.4 in Appeal No.75212022 il.12.04.2022 confirming the order of respondent No.2 in proceedings No.156712021/56, dt.28.12.2021 in POI{ No.44l271 dt.03.05.2021 in ordering for confiscation of vehicle^-I'ractor bearing No. AP 25 AF 7483, to the Govemment respectivcly, illegal and arbitrary, and consequently to set aside the same and to direct respondents 2 and 3 to releasetheTractors bearing Nos. AP 25 AJ 1200 and AP 25 AF 7481 to the petitioners and to pass such othcr order or orders as this Court may deem fit and necessary in the interest ofjustice.

¶64

W.P,No ;.3640¹ & 18 178 o12022

¶65

,'2

¶66

'[ hus, fro r] r he : l)o. I r ayer, it is seen that bc,th the Writ Petitions are challenging r1e .,)n'xrtion orders passed by respondent No.2 confiscating thr: .'etir r:s r the respective petiti()ners under Section 44(2) of the T.i Fcrcjt^, c " 1967. The petitioners ha,l filed Appeals before respondt:n Nr, I ri a nst the confiscation c'rders and the same have been conf n rec lr1'^t I e r\ppellate Authority and atainst the same, the present Writ [) r:tit i :, rs le 1iled.

¶67

L.earned r or nsel fbr h : petitioners, Sri Akkarn Eshwar, submitted that undisputed t1' thr pr,^r x rties of the petitioner.s in both the Writ Petitions are rcliacerr: the forest land and the petitioner in W.P.No.ll00 I t' 2Q1') a^r 1 F,etitioner No.l in W.l).No 22272 ol 2022 are owncrs of t h,. respect i^,t vehicles and that the l " accusecl in POR No.44il7l hircrl re r,:hi<I : lf the petitioner in W.l).No.21001 ol2022, rvhile petitioner l,lo.2 in^y' ['.No.22272 of 2022 hired the vehicle ol petitioner No. I in W. Nr, 2^'.)-72 of 2022 for ploughing thcir lands and in accordance u it tlt^- d :, tions, the petitioners hird pltughecl thc land and by r.nistakt lt l..ro,ir 11 the boundaries of^,he lancl. thev have ploughcd the fb'e ,1 lrr rl l , .,hich POR cases have ,rlrea,ly been booked and thcy' arc ire rdir,r a. t::ication. It is submirted that thereafter,

¶68

W.P.Nos.36403 & 38178 of2012

¶69

¶70

respondent No.2 has issued show-cause notices to the petitioners as to why the vehicles should not be confiscated under Section 44 of the Telangana Forest Act, 1967 and thereafter, the confiscation orders have been passed.

¶71

The leamed counsel for the petitioners submitted that Section 44 of the Telangana Forest Act, 1967 is not attracted in this case as it deals with only the vehicles which are accused of engaging in a forest of-fence, i.e., with forest timber and forest produce and since in thesc cases, there was no involvement of forest timber or forest produce which are involved, the confiscation is bad in law. He placed reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in the case ol'SutrDivisional Forest Officer, Chennur Vs. Vijav l]. Gulati and othersr. Ile submitted that the version of the petitioncrs was that plouehing ol' the lorest land was due to ignorance of the boundaries and therefore. this judgment would be applicable to this case and tlre orders of confiscation should be set aside.

¶72

Learned Government Pleader for Forests. however, relied upon the averments in the counter affidavit and submitted that the petitioner

¶73

'req8(l)AI-D^{r l7 (FB)}

¶74

W.P.NCs.3640l & 38178 of 2022

¶75

¶76

in W.P No.230(tl rf . )22 r i petitioner No.l in W P.N<t.22272 of 2022 being owners cl he^'rc1 ': were hired by the larLd owners who were well au,are that tlr,rir lr rd i rllaccnt to the forest land and got their land ploughed along r, ith tlrc^,r : ;t land and since the petitioners being the c'wners ol- the r e cl:. ;Lr, :^,rally responsible and thereby comrnitted a fbrest of'fbnce a; . cllr rc L c -'r Section 2(e) of the lelangana Forest Act, I 967 and as th,r^' eh i . les ' f t he petitioners were irrvolved in the forest offence, the velri. les^,r t:r ' I lble to be confiscated under Section 44 of the Telangana^{r(r:esi ,\cl} I )67. He therefore prayed for dismissal o[ the Writ Petitio r:

¶77

Havinq r,:!^ rd ' tl r r^vul contentions and th,: material on record, this Courl llnrl: ti at :Llnri :, lv, the vehicles were invoh,ed in the fbrcst oft'ence olplourlr ng,,l-tlr i,rest land, and the authoriW has drawn the power trom Ser ti^,n 1 l ol h :^'felangana Forest Acr, 1967 to seize such vehicles

¶78

i. l hc .lutisi l nt i' I tl . I ,rn'hlc Full Bench of the erstwhile Andhra I'radeslr Iliglr -' Lrrr r ( casc ol Sub-Divisional Iiorest Officcr, (lhennur \js. 'r'ijal u rrti and others (l supra) refbrred to thc provisions ol S-r; -St:, ri,rr ( (l) ol'Section 44 of the r\ndhra Pradcsh

¶79

W.P.Nos.l6403 & 38178 of 2022

¶80

¶81

Forest Act, 1967 for holding that confiscation of vehicle involved in illicit transport of forest produce is not sustainable if the owner proves that the transportation was done without his knowledge, connivance or

¶82

consent though his agent or driver is found culpable.

¶83

Section 44 of the Telangana Forest Act, 1967 reads as under:

¶84

"44. Seizure of^property liable to confiscatiott and^procedure tlrcreupon:- (l) lthere there is reason to believe tlrut a Jbrcst o/lbnce has been committed in respect ofany tintber or_forest produce. such timber, or forest produce, together with all tools, ropcs, chains, boats, vehicles and cattle used in commilting any such off'encc may bc seizcd by anyforest olficer or police officer.

¶85

(2) Et,ery fficer seizing any property under this stction shall place on such property or the receptacle, f any, in drich it is cottained, a mark indicating thal the same has becn so s<'i:cd and shall, exccpt u'here lhe offender agrees in writing forlhvith to^qct thc o.lli,nce conrpounded, without any unreasonable dela.y, eithcr prolutc thc property seized before an olficer not belou' the rank of un Assistanl Consenator of Forests authorised by the Governnt,nt in this behalf by notification (hereinafter referred to os the outhoristd o.l/iccr) or make a report ofsuch seizure to lhe Magistrate:

¶86

Proyicled that where the timber orforest produce vith rcspctt to vhich such olfence is believed to have been commiued is tlu'propcrn' o/ the Central or Statc Government and the offender is ,tot k o\tn. it shall be sufficicnt if the officer makes, as soon as ma.y bt. u report ol thc^{(ircun$ta,lces} to lhe Divisional Forest Officcr.

¶87

W.P.Nos.1640] & 381'78 of 2022

¶88

¶89

(2-.4r li he n tt i tl^,t)rise(l oficer seizes Lmd< r sub-section (l) any timbu , . .rt)^,st.c t,rce or where any such timbe'r or forest produce i: [ ]odtt<,,d l1t"r'him under sub-section (2) and he is satisfied thar r.f,t.-'st ,, 'i tct, has been commilted, in respect thereof, he ma.v ort'ei .onli(aii t r f lhe timber orforest^produce so seized or produced t )! tlu t ';tl rl ools. ropes, chains, boal." or vchicles used in comnilt ,t,r .rut'n )/it ) l

¶90

(2-8, N 'ortt^,r(t '( tliscating any property shall be made under sub-sectiot ('-A,^, ,tk. ' I <' person from whom the property is seized is given,-

¶91

(a) a | )t,:(' it^.'.ritittg informing him o,r the .qrounds on rli 4 r, ;^{tt (rposed} to confiscate sucl, property;

¶92

ft) at' )Dpt'^{rt ,tin} of making a represetrlation in writing y tt ,t, c raasonuble time as may t'e speciJied in the n(ttt ( t,'. rt r;t tlu'groundsfor confiscation; and

¶93

¶94

(2 ( t ith,tr pt ,^;r l;tt' to lhe provisions of sub-section (2-B), no order 1l rtlltttt, t^,tntlcr sub-section (2-A) of any tool, rope, chain, fun o rtl;rlt, , a I lt<, nrude if the owner thereof proves to the satis.foctioi ,^I tlit iut,' r s:d ollicer thdt it was used in carrying the properlr 'iu t\tt t .s lt 'r^''<'dg., or connivance or rhe knowledge or connivanct , ,, /rrr lr1t, t / tutr'. or the person in charge of the tool, rotrtc, cfutit,. tttttil t t'L^t c , in committing lhe ofibnc( and that each of them hatl r , n al' ttrt , n^,,tlc untl necessarv precautions against such ir-s(,.

¶95

W.P.Nos.36403 & 38178 ol20ll

¶96

¶97

(2-D) Any forest olficer not below the rank of a Conservator o.f Forests empowered by the Government in this behalf by notifrcarion, malt u'ithin thirty days from the date of the order ofconfscation by the authorised qfiicer under sub-section (2-A) etther suo motu or on application call for and examine the record of that order and may makc such inquiry or cause such inquiry to be made and pass such ordcrs as he may thinkfit:

¶98

Proyided that no order, prejudicial to any person, shall be passed without giving him an opportunily ofbeing heard.

¶99

(2-E) Any person aggrieved by an order passed under subsection (2-A) or sub-section (2-D) nay, within thirty days from rhe date of comnnmicdtion to him of such order, appeal to the District Court having jurisdiction over the area in which the property has been sci:ed, and the District Court shall after giving an opportunir!- b Ihe parties to be heard, pass such order as it may think fit and tlrc ordar o/ thc District Court so passed shall befinal.

¶100

(-l) .1tr,y ./brcst oflicer not below the rank of a Forester, yho or vlnse subordinatc has seized any tools, ropes, chains, boats, vehiclcs or cattlc undcr sub-section (l) and where he makes a report o.[ such sei:urc lo lhc Magistrate under sub-section (2) may release tlrc sanu, on tlu'c-recution hy thc owner lhereof a bondfor the productiott o/ thc propert.t,so rt'lcascd, i/ and when so required before the magistrat(,.

¶101

(4) Upon the receipt of any report under sub-section (2), thc ,nagistrutc sfu l, except u'here the ofence is compounded, take such meast.rcs as nn.t bc nccessary for lhe trial of the accused and tht, disposal o/ thc properly according to law.

¶102

W.l',No r.1640.i & 38178 of 2022

¶103

¶104

(5) Iht prol',16' . il '.tl undtr lhis section, shull be kept in the custody oJ tht fo",';t oi c, r rtot belou' the rank ofa Forest Guard or the Villag< l[cad,rut t 't,'l the compensation Jbr compounding the olJbnce is pt id c n t I t;tt ordcr qf the magistrdte directing^its disposal is rt' t:ite:'."

¶105

Thus, Sub-secti,rn t2 t t p r^,les an cxemption clause from the rigors of Sub-section (tl, l'tl - cr r lr proles his innocerce cr ignorance of committing the 1, rest otl" rt:. Irr this case, admitredly the forest^land ploughed by tlrt p.:titi ner^. i adjaccnt to the land o1'the petitioner No.2, and it was clairn( -[ 1l rt t^- r ]ctitioner No.l was not au'are of the said boundaries and tl .y lr:rn: { r( ssed into the forest land by mistake. This stand of the pet ti^,n€rf th.r l rerc is a common bourrdary is not rebutted by the forest oflic als

¶106

In the abt'v, jut : rn, t hc lationale laid dowrr is that if the owner proves that he r, a. nr 1 : \, i I thc circumstanccs leadinll to violation of the Forest Act i n, ir ,::n r rins the lbrest of'lence . he can be excused and the provision: r)f l,r't)t r rr^{: -1} ncctl not be applied

¶107