‘ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR we Wi‘it Petition (CL) No.5 of 2007 PETITIONERS: 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through Conservator of Forests & Appellate Authority, Kanker Forest Circle, Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker (CG). 2. Authorised Officer & Sub Divisional Forest Officer, Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar Kanker (CG) Versus 1. Ashok Jain, S/o Dhanraj Jain, R/o Dondi, Tahsil Dallirajahara, District Durg (CG). 2. Anand Jain, S/o Manak Jain, R/o Raipur, Partner No.2, M/s Anand Infrastructure — 89, Vivekanand Nagar, Raipur(CG). 3. Smt. Neha Jain, W/o Manish Jain, Partner No.3, M/s Anand infrastructure, 89, Vivekanand Nagar, Raipur (CG) RESPONDENTS: Partner No.2 & 3, through Power of 0'): Attorney Holder Ashok Jain, Partner ~ No.1, Mls Anand Infrastructure, Raipur (CG) {Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia} Present: Mr. Sushil Dubey, Govt. Advocate for the State/petitioners. Mr. Shree Kumar Agrawai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anand Kumar Gupta, Advocate for the respondents Single 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 1“ Additional Sessions Judge, Kanker in Criminal Revision No.36/2006 whereby the order of confiscation of crusher machines to the State by the competent authority under the Forest Act has been quashed. . l have heard learned ‘counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned, records of the Courts below and other documents; ,2. .\.€i w?k . As per undisputed facts of the case, JiCense for carrying boulders from land bearing Khasra No.11 (Old KhasravNo.1/1-K) situate at Village Salhe Tekadhoda was granted by the Mining Department to the respondents herein who have installed crusher and have removed boulders. VThe Forest Ofncer has registered forest crime against the respondents herein on the ground that the respondents herein took boulders from the land other than the land allotted to them on lease‘ After providing opportunity of hearing, the competent authority has passed the order of confiscation vide order dated 2-8-2005, same was challenged in appeal before the appellate court which has affirmed the order of confiscation vide its order dated 2-2-2006, same was challenged in revision by the respondents herein before the 15‘ Additional Sessions Judge, Kanker in Criminal Revision No.36/2006, 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 respondents herein by the Mining Officer and on the basis of mining lease the respondents started mining work and have installed crusher within the tease area, but without any authority, the Forest Officer has initiated criminal proceeding under the Forest Act and has also confiscated the crusher and boulder of the respondents herein. . Learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State/r petitioners submits that the respondents herein have installed crusher and have taken the boulders from the land which was not allotted to them and thereby committed illegality and committed forest offence. The Forest Officer has rightly confiscated the crusher and boulders of the respondents herein, but the Court below has illegally reversed the order. . On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the petition and submits that'in order to confiscatethe tools/property under Section 52 of the lndian Forest Act, 1927, the Forest omc’er/competent authority was under obligation to prove the fact that the respondents have acted in violation of the condition of lease and have removed the s ' 5 The order impugned and records of the Courts below, especially the minerals from the land which was not allotted to the respondents. finding relating to such mining work reveal that the forest officers were under obligation to prove the fact that the respondents have removed th A3 e mg ‘ minerals/boulders from the place which was not allotted to them by cogent evidence, but even the forest officers have not adduced evidence to show that from which khasra number or which part of Khasra No.1/1—K of Village SalheTekadhoda, the respondents have removed the boulders/ minerals. Virtually, confiscation of property is penal action and strict proof of violation was required to be shown, but evidence adduced on behalf of the State/petitioners is not sufficient to establish the fact that the respondents have violated the condition of lease and have removed the boulders/minerals from outside of the area under lease. ln these circumstances, the order impugned dated 21-9—2006 passed by the 15‘ Additional Sessions Judge, Kanker in Criminal Revision No.36/2006 does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. While exercising such revisional jurisdiction, the court below‘ has not committed any illegality requiring interference in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. . Consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- T. P. Sharma Judge m ' .>/.;..,