Allowed

Baradaval Kishan v. State of Telangana, And 3 Others

Telangana HC23 Feb 2023WP/7466/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging rejection of appeal against confiscation order. Court acquitted Appellate Authority of jurisdictional error for rejecting appeal based on a mistaken statement by the petitioner and remitted matter for de novo consideration.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order rejecting the appeal was set aside and the matter remitted to the respondent No.2 (Appellate Authority) to pass a fresh order within four months.

Baradaval Kishan Vs State of Telangana, And 3… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[³³⁰³¹

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY ,THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRt JUSTpE J SREENTVAS RAO

¶6

WRIT PETITION N :7466 OF 2021

¶7

Between:

¶8

Baradaval Kishan, S/o. Lagjiram, lndian, Aged about 44 years, Occ. Business, Rl/o.SiddapurThanda,VarniMandal,NizamabadDistrict.

¶9

...pETlTlONER

¶10

AND

¶11

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

¶12

The Additional Principal Chief, Conservator of Forest, Nizamabad Circle, Nizamabad District.

¶13

3 The Forest Divisional Officer, Nizamabad, Nizamabad District.

¶14

4 The Forest Range Officer, Varni, Nizamabad District.

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia^praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders of the respondent No.3 (Forest Divisional Officer) passed in case No.372312O201F7 dated 19l1Ol2O2O confirmed by the Appellate Authority in Proceedings No.3205/2020/Ml dated 2810112021 as illegal, null, void and arbitrary and consequentially direct the respondents to release the Tractor No.TS'16EP-7625 of the^petitioner lA NO: 1 OF 2021

¶17

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be^pleased to direct the respondents to release the Tractor No.TS16EP-7625 of the petitioner by suspending the operation of the orders of the respondent No.3 (Forest Divisional Officer) passed in case No.3723i20201F1 dated 19/10/2020 confirmed by the Appellate Authority in Proceedings No.3205/2020/M1 dated 2810112021 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. K. DURGA PRASAD

¶18

Counsel forthe Respondents No.1to4: AGP FOR FORESTS

¶19

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶20

Hl tItJ'gaB SRI JUSTICE J SREENTTISi RAO

¶21

WRIT PDTITIO N No.7466 of 2O2l

¶22

ORDER:

¶23

The pr:titioner filed this writ petition secl< ing a Writ of Mandamul c.ec)larinpl the confiscation orders of tLLe respondent No.3 pass :d in Case No.3723/2020/F7 date<: 19.10.2020 confirmed b:f Appellate Authoriry 1n Proceedings No.3205/2 t'2OlMt dated 28.Ot.2O2 1 as iltegal, rLull, void and arbr trzrry a d consequently direct the respondents :o release the vchrcir: i. e. 'iirc:or No. TS 16 Ep 7625 of the petit oner 2. flearr Sri K. Durga prasad, learnc.d cc,r.: nsel for the petitioner i nrl learne:d Asst. Government pleacie::, for Forests appearlng c r :ehalf ol the respondents 1 to 4. 3, Learn :d counsel for the petitioner sublnits that the pr:tr tioner is [.re ou,ne,r of Tractor No. TS16Ep 7(i25 and foresr aLlthonties nilde an allegation against the peti..ir;ner alleging that he is c :arirrg the bushes on Ol.OZ.2020 near. pecldaregadi area in Corn )artrnent Nos.233 of Jalal Reserve Fo -6r;1, rSiddapur shivar of J rlalpur (N) beat, the respondent I{o.4 and his subordinate stafl- during patrolling found that thr: l6titiqnsl .5 ploughing t e forest land in an extent of 1.3t; her;tors lor cultrvatron a ri tlte Forest Section Offlcer, Chandc o: al,)ng with

¶24

¶25

his staff^{has taken the tractor into their custody and reported} that, to^{encroach the forest iand' the petitionercieared the} bushes^{and ploughedthe forestland of 1'35 hectorsvalued@} Rs.8,45,100/-^{(RupeesEight Lakhs Forty Five thousand and} One Hundred^{only)' He further submits that Forest Section} Ofhcer^{registeredPOR No'03/O41dated 01'07'2020under} Section^{20 (lXCXii)(iii) (iv) (vii) & X of TS ForestAct' t967 and} under^{Section 2 (15) & 37 of Wild Life ProtectionAct' 1972 for} illegal^{ciearance of forestgrowth which is equal to 7' (half) Cart} Load fuel^{wood value Rs'311/- in Reserve Forest area' The} petitioner's^{vehicle wasseized and broughtto the Office of the} respondent^{No.4' Respondent No'4 produced the vehicle before} the Authorized^{Officer& Forest Divisional Ofhcer' Nizamabad on} 21.09 .2O2O^{and requested to confiscate the vehicleto the} Government^{of Telangana'}

¶26

3.1^{He further submits that basing on the report submitted} by the^{respondent No'4' a show-causenotice was issued to the} petitioner^{ott 2l} 'O9^{'2020 and conductedenquiry'During the} course^{of enquiry, the petitioner stated that he hasnot} committed^{any offence' but the report has revealed that the} petitioner^{has accepted his guiltBasing on the said report'}

¶27

¶28

resp()nder t No.3 p.rssed order dated 19 LO.2O,2C confiscating the vchicl irlong with % (half) Cart load fuel rvrcrd and handed over lo t. e Govern ment. euestioning r_he s rirl conhscation order, th, petitioncr has filed appeal befort: the Appellate Authr:rity, respondent No.2. The Appellate ArL:trorit5r without considcrir 1 the grounds raised by the petitionr::: in the appeal simpiv rej' cted the a-ppear on the ground that cc,:rscation order has erlrear y br:en pzrssed and the appeal has rr,l substance or m ent

¶29

3.2 Tl-re i,:arned counsel for the petitior.t:r' vehemenrlv contendt:d tlLal the r\ppellate Authority without t:,:rns dering the grounds r ri:;e ri by the petitioner mechanical [.7 re jected the appeal u'it rout grving any reasons much less valir.i reasons and lhe szLme i contrary to the settled principles of [rLu,..

¶30

Per :ontra, the learned Asst. Governmrrtr t Fleader for Forests cr nt.ended that the primary Authori t5, as well as Appellate \uLthority rightly passed the order. There is no illcgality ar cl irregularity in the impugned orders.

¶31

Havi rg considered the rival submissions rrarle bv the pel]Lroncr r nrl I he inLpugncd orcler clated 2g.A1.,.).at2l passed by

¶32

¶33

the respondent^{No'2 con{irmingthe orderpassed by the} respondent^{No.3 datedlg 'lO '2O2O} '^{it appearsthat the Appellate} Authority^{had rejectedthe appeal only on the ground that in} Para No.S^{of the appeal' the petitioner mentioned that the} confiscation^{orders have not yet finalized'though conhscatton} ordershavealreadybeenpassedbytherespondentNo.3on lg .1O.2O2O^{and that the petitionerin his appealhas} misrepresented^{the fact tothe AppeltateAuthoritythat} Authorized^{Officer has not yet f'nalized' On the said ground} only the^{appealwas rejected withoutconsideringthe} contentionsofthepetitionerthoughthepetitionerfiledthe appeal^{questioningthe very sameconhscationproceedings} passed by^{the respondentNo'3 dated19'10'2020'Duringthe} course^{of hearing,Iearnedcounsel for the petitioner submits} that by^{mistake of fact, the petitioner inadvertently mentioned} in the^{appealthat conhscationorders have not yet finalized} though^{the petitioner has fiied the appeal before the Appellate} Authority^{questioning the very same confiscation order dated} lg.l(-.2L22.^{He further submitsthat pursuant to the interim} order^{grantedby this Court dated25'Og'2O21the respondents} have released^{the vehicle'} *-\

t I I ! i

In^,ic.w of th,: same, rvithout going into It: rr.e rits of the case, the irnpugned order passed by the resP:nde.nt No.2 in appeal Pr <:r:erlings No.3205l2O2O/M 1, dated 2,3.r.)1.,262i, r" "", aside and tl-e matter is remitted back to the resl>rrndent No.2 to pass orde s aliesh after giving opportunily Lo .he petitioner in accordanc ) with law, within a period of fi;ur (C4j mcnths from the date o rr:ceipt ol copy of the order.

¶40

Accr rcingly, the $rrit petition is allowed I'here shall be no order a i to (losts.

¶41

Mrsr :l aneous applications, pending i1. ar..,., shall stand closed.

¶42

That Rule Nisi has been made absolute as^aoove. Witness the Hon'b : the Chief Justice UJJAL BHUYAN,^{on ThisThursday, the} Twenty th rd of February, Two Thousand and^{Twenty Three.}

¶43

SD/. N. CHAhII)RA. SEKHAR RAO ASSISTAIIT ( 'II'REGISTRAR ,TRUE COPY/I SECTION OFFICER

¶44

To,

¶45

The Principal St-'cretary, Forest Department,^{Secretariai,::itat3 of Telangana,} Hyderabad.

¶46

The Addition€ Principal Chief, Conservator^{of Forest.Niz.i:LmabadCircle,} Nizamabad D strict.

¶47

The Forest Di 'isional Officer, Nrzamabad,^{Nizamabad Dislrict}

¶48

The Forest R; nge Officer, Varni, Nizamabad^District.

¶49

Two CCs to , GP FOR FoRESTS,High^{Court for the Statr: of Telangana,at} Hyderabad [(^rUT]

¶50

Ohe CC to s il K. DURGA PRASAD,^Advocate [oPUc ]

¶51

Two CD copir s

GJP

HIGH COURT

DATED:23102'2023

ORDER

WP.No.7466,tf 2021

)-.
at<br><br>Z i rt:irii ?t23

¶59

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT C(^ISTS

¶60

\0
{Y"-
--/''./ -\t;)

Baradaval Kishan v. State of Telangana, And 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baradaval Kishan v. State of Telangana, And 3 Others

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

Parsika Seethamma Vs The State of Telangana and 7 others

Moothi Swamy Vs The State of Telangana

Thokala Ramesh Vs State of Telangana

Anwarul-Uloom Educational Association and 2 Oths Vs the Govt of Ap., Rep by Its Prl.Secretary and Anoths

Naragani Muthamma Vs The District Collector

A.Bhumaiah, Vs The State of Telangana