THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4071 of 2010 Date:20.09.2010 Between: The Forest Ranger Officer, Nizamabad and two others. ……….Petitioner. And H.A.Samad. ……….Respondent. THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4071 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Forest Ranger Officer, Nizamabad and others aggrieved by the order dated 16.11.2007 passed in C.M.A.No.11 of 2002 on the file of the District Judge, Nizamabad. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The State of Andhra Pradesh, through the Authorized Officer –cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Flying Squad, Nizamabad, filed a case against the respondent, who was the owner of H.A Smad Sawmill, Nizamabad, and consequently passed an order dated 03-12-2001 confiscating the total seized quantity of timber of 14.392 Cmt., (Which includes 4.7615 Cmt of teak timber of round and sawn sizes booked vide POR No.138/3, dt:04.07.2000), together with electrical motor used for running of sawmill and all its accessories to the Government. Aggrieved by the same, the owner of the sawmill filed an appeal before the District Judge’s Court, Nizamabad vide C.M.A.No.11 of 2002. By order dated 16.11.2002, the learned District Judge partly allowed the appeal while setting aside the impugned order, dated 03.12.2001, passed by the Authorized Officer-cum- Divisional Forest Officer Flying Squad, Nizamabad in proceedings No.3260/N2/2000 in confiscation of the stock to the extent of 8.489 Cmt., teak timber of round and sawn sizes and electrical motor with its accessories and with regard to the confiscation of remaining seized stock of 5.903 Cmt. of round and sawn sizes, the order was confirmed. Aggrieved by the same, the Government filed the present appeal. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that since the respondent has violated the provisions of the Forest Act and the Rules thereunder by possessing the teak wood without any authority and based on the information received by the department, the Flying Squad (Authorized Officer, Nizamabad) has conducted raid and found illegal activity done by the respondent and confiscated the stock. After giving a notice to the owner of the saw-mill, an elaborate enquiry was conducted and passed an order vide proceedings dated 3.1.2002 confiscating 14.392 cmt together with electrical motor and all its accessories to the Government. Aggrieved by the same, the owner of the saw-mill/respondent herein filed C.M.A.No.11 of 2002 on the file of the District Judge, Nizamabad. By order dated 16.11.2007, the learned judge modified the order of the Revisional Authority, while setting aside the confiscation of wood to the extent of 8.489 cmts teak timber to round and swan seizes and electrical meters with its accessories and confirming the seizure of stock of 5.903 Cmt; of round and swan sizes. Therefore, the order setting aside the seizure to the extent of 8.489 Cmts of round and sawn is illegal. He further submitted that the whole teak wood in the possession of the respondent herein was found to be unauthorized. Therefore, consequently raid conducted by the flying squad and by conducting a panchanama to the effect that the whole stock was seized and thereafter, elaborate proceedings were commenced on the file of the Authorized Officer, Nizamabad, who issued the proceedings, dated 13.12.2007 were nothing illegal on the part of the Divisional Forest Officer, Nizambabad in passing the order dated 3.12.2001 and there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Appellate Authority/District Judge and Divisional Forest Officer, Nizamabad. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent-owner submitted that the Original Authority, who was a Divisional Forest Officer, Nizambaad had conducted raid over the respondent’s saw-mill and seized the whole stock without any authority and without conducting proper panchanama. Therefore, he had filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e the District Judge and the learned District Judge, after considering the appeal and the material seized, which is authorized and unauthorized in the possession of the respondent and confirmed the order of the learned Divisional Forest Officer to the extent of the unauthorized material and directed to release the authorized material. Therefore, there are no merits to interfere with the order passed by the learned District Judge in the CMA. He also brought to the notice of this Court in Paras 11 to 13 which reads as under:- “Admittedly when the raid party raided the saw mill of the appellant on 19.5.2000 found excess of 0.900 Cmt in round and 5.815 Cmt. In sawn sizes and the Forest Range Officer (Flying Squad), submitted a report dated 20.5.2000 to the Divisional Forest Officer, Nizamabad. Another report of the Forest Range Officer, Nizamabad dated 26.05.2000 submitted to the Divisional Forest Officer, Nizamabad shows that in the Panchanama it is mentioned that appellant has stated that he has mistakenly forgotten to take entry of dated 22.05.1998 and the details of the above permits are not shown in the Panchanama. This report dated 26.05.2000 further shows that “it is not known whether the inspection party has taken the above two permits into account or not as it is not revealed from the report of the Divisional Forest Officer Flying Squad, Nirmal and also from Panchanama”. This report dated 26.05.2000 further shows that “if the above two permits were not taken into account by the inspection party I request that it may kindly be clarified whether the quantity of the above two permits can be taken into account before taking any action for booking POR.” The contents of the above report strengthens the version of the appellant that two permits are not considered by the Authorized Officer without giving any valid reason. A perusal of Panchanama dated 19.05.2000 conducted by the FSO, F.S.P Nirmal shows that name of the person to whom the custody of the seized stock has been handed over is let blank. No reasons are assigned for not mentioning the name of the authority to whom the seized stock has been handed over. The panchanama also shows that appellant has intimated the raid party of not making entries of the permits 23213 dt:31.12.1999 and 825132/16503 dated 22.5.1998 in his saw mil register and handed over the copies of the said permits to the raid party. It appears that raid party has not examined any witnesses. Admittedly after conducting raid on the saw mill of the appellant on 19.05.2000, the seized socks were transported to the Division Office of the respondents and in view of the aforementioned discussion this Court finds sufficient force in the contention of the appellant. Admittedly 0.900 teak round and 5.815 Cmt. Teak sizes are found excess in the saw mill of the appellant and the respondents authorities have seized the said excess stock along with the other stocks for which there is no variation found but the Divisional Forest Officer (Authorized Officer), Nizamabad has passed order for confiscation of entire seized stock of 14.392 Cmt. together with electrical motor used for running of saw mill and it’s all accessories to the government.” Having been found the above reasons, the learned District Judge, Nizamabad allowed the appeal in part and the impugned order dated 3.12.2001 passed by the Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Range Officer, in proceedings No.3260/N2/2000 in confiscation of stock to the extent of 14.392 cmt of round and swan seizes together with electrical motor with all its accessories to the Government were set aside and with regard to the remaining stock of 5.903 Cmts of round and swan seizes the confiscation was confirmed. Therefore, it is not the case of the appellant that the whole stock found in the possession of the respondent owner of saw- mill was illegal. Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere with the order impugned. There are no grounds to entertain the Civil Revision Petition. Hence the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ Justice G. Chandraiah Date:20.09.2009. mrb