a HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR ‘ é) Writ Petition (CL) No.4 (Sf 2007 PETITIONERS: 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Conservator of Forests & Appellate Authority, Kanker Forest Circle, Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker (CG). RESPONDENT: 2. Authorised Officer & Sub Divisionai Forest Officer, Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar Kanker (CG) Versus Dharmendra Chopra, S/o Pukhraj Chopra, Rlo Sambaipur, Police Station and Tahsii Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar Kanker (CG) {Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India} Present: Mr. Sushii Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the State/petitioners. Mr. Shree Kumar Agrawai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anand Kumar Gupta, Advocate for t 1e respondent. Sinqle Bench: Hon’ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J ORAL ORDER (30-8—201 1) 1. By this writ petition, the State/petitioners have challenged legality and propriety 'of the order dated 21-9-2006 passed by the 15‘ Additionai Sessions Judge, Kanker in Criminal Revision No.15/2006 whereby the order of confiscation of boulder to the State by the competent authority under the Forest Act has been quashed. 2. i have heard Iearned counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned, records of the Courts below and other documents. 3. As per undisputed facts of the case, license for carrying boulders from land bearing Khasra No.11 (Old Khasra No.1/1-K) situate at Village Tekadhoda was granted by the Mining Department to the respondent herein who has installed crusher and has removed boulders. The Forest Officer has registered forest crime against the respondent herein on the ground that the respondent herein took boulders from the Iand other than the Iand allotted to him on lease. After providing 'opportunity of hearing, the competent authority has passed the order of confiscation vide order dated 23-7-2005, same was challenged in appeal before the appellate court which has affirmed the order of conflsc‘ation vide its order dated 3- 12-2005, same was challenged in revision by the respondent herein before the 15‘ Additional Sessions Judge, Kanker in Criminal Revision No.15/2006, whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge has quashed the order passed by the forest authorities. While reversing the order, learned Additional Sessions Judge has arrived at finding that mining lease was granted to the respondent herein by the Minin Ofdcer and on the basis of mining lease the respondent started mining work and has installed rusher within the lease area, but wiho any authority, the Forest Officer has initiated crinal procdng unde the Forest Act and has also confiscated the crusr and boulder of the responden herein. . Learned Government Advocate appearing on ehalf of the State/ petitioners submits that the respondent herein has installed cruser and has taken the boulders from the land which was not allotted to him and thereby committed illegality nd cmmitted forest offence. The Forest Officer has rightly onfiscated te usher and boulders of the respondent herein, but the Court below has illegally reversed the order. . On the other and, arned counsel for the respondent opposes the petition and submits that in order to confiscate the tools/property under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 197, the Forest Officer/competent authority was unde obligation to prove the fact that the respondent has acted in violation of the conditin of lease and has reoed the' minerals frm the land which was no allotted to the respndent. . The order impuned and records of the Courts below, especially the finding relting to such mining work reveal that the forest officers were under obligation to prove the fact that the respondent has removed the minerals/boulers from the place which was not allotted to him by cogent evidence, but ven the‘ forest ofdcers have not adduced evidence to show that from which khasra number or which part of Khasra No.1/1-K of V po m illage Tekadhoda, the resndent has reoved the boulders/minerals. Virtuall, confiscation of property s penal action a strict proof of violation was required to be shown, but evidence aduced on behalf of the State/petitioners is not sufficient to establish the fact that the- respondent has violated the condition of lease and has removed the boulders/minerals from outside of the area under lease. In these _. )/q/ g c tut mi eei r he t b h a o c h cr h le 2 r o mv o t o g a d e y i nd d