/@ @D $mg!e Bench wlwv /Narayan Sahu, S/o Late Shri IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No ‘K\ 0V5 OF 2011 PETITIONER ' Thakur Prasad Sahu, aged about 7O years, R/o Village Mudipar, Tahsil Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (CG). Versus m' ’ Through the Secretary, Department of Forest, DKS Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (CG). Conservator of Forest—cum— Appellate Authority, Durg, District Durg (CG). Divisional Forest Officer, Khairagarh, Dist Rajnandgaon (CG) . WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA State of Chhattisgarh, /' Rm HEGH CCvURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (SB: Hcn’b‘e Mr. T.P.SHARMA, J.) Writ Petiiion {Ck No.2175 of ZW‘u‘i Narayan Sahu State of Chhat'n‘sgarh and others POST FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE ORDER ON 27/3/2011 5 Sd/— T.P. Sharma Judge @ HIGH CC‘URT GF CHHATI§GARH AT WLASPUR Writ Petition (C) No.2’i75 of 20'“ Petitioner Narayan $ahu, 3/0 Late Shri Thakur Prasad Sahu. aged about 7D years, R/o village Mudipara, Tahsil Dongargarh. District Rajnandgaon (CG); Versus Respondents 1, State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretaiy‘ Department cf Farest. DKS? Bhawan, Mantraiaya, Raipur {CG} 2. Conservator cf Foresi‘cum-Appeiiate Authority‘ Durg, District Durg (6.6.) 3. Divisionai Forest Oificer, Khairagarh, Dist Rajnandgaon (CG). (Writ Petition under Ariicie 226i227 of the Constitution of india) Mr.H.B.Agrawai, Senior Advacate with Ms Shipra Biswas, coungei for the petitioner. MaVinod Kumar Tekam, Pane! Lawyerforthe respondents/State. (SB: Hon’ble Mr. T.F. Sharma, J.} eRDER (Passed on 2?“ SegEembei, 201 1) > . By this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the peiitiener has chaiienged the iegaiiiy & propriety of the order dated 9.3.2011 passed by the 61h Additionai Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Durg, in Criminei Revision No.59/1'i, whereby iearned 8‘“ Additionai Sessions Judge whiie deciding the revision has affirmed the order of confiscation of irecior 8: troiiey under Section 52 of the indian Forest Ac r 1S327. i have heard learned counsei for the parties. perused the order impugned, copy or the order passed by the appeiiate authority i.e. Conservator of Forest, Durg, Circie Durg and copy of the order passed by the authorized officer under Forest Act, Khairagarh. As per copies of the aforesaid orders, the petitioner is owner of tractor No.C.G.08 C 9034 & troiiey No.C.G.O8 C 9035 which was seized by the authorized authority under the indian Forest Act, 1927. Wooden piank of (!A -§2\ khamhar and neem woad was found in the tractor troHey. After int§mating ihe Magistrate, the authorized authority conducted cermscation praceeding and fmany tractar troiiey were confiscated. Same was chanenged before the appeilate authority and the appellate authority has dismis3ed the appeal. Then it wa$ challenged before the 8t“ Additional Sessions Judge (F’TAC), Durg and vide order impugned the 8m Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed the revision. . Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that khamhar wood and neem wood was owned by Shivkumar Sahu and Tejram; the petitioner was transporting the same; even tractor was not seized from the spot. The Forest Department has not proved the fact that tractor was invoived in the commission of forest offence and that too the present petitioner/owner was having knowledge that the offence comm‘rtted was within the knowledge of the present petitioner. Learned counsei further argued that the aforesaid wooden plank was owned by Shiv Kumar Sahu and Tejram Lodhi. Trees standing over their lands feii down, then it was loaded in the aforesaid tractor trotiey and the same was taken to saw miii. As per statement of $hivkumar Sahu and Tetram Lodhi after leaving trotiey near saw miit ioaded with aforesatd wood driver Raghuvir took the tractor fer repair and when he came after repair of tractor 'ne found that troiiey aiong with wood was missing and same was seized by the Forest Department. Order passed by the authorized officer reveats that Shivkumar Sahu and Tejram were faited to prove the fact that wood seized from tro‘riey was the pieces of the trees standing over their iands or they had after obtaining permission cut the trees. , Learned counsei placed reliance in the matter of State of MP. v. Ram Gopai Sharma reported in tri.P.W.N.’i991(l) Note 66, in which the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has heid that owner proving ignorance of commission of forest offence, vehicie cannot be confiscated under Section t5 of the MP. Van Upaj Wyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969. . On the other hand, iearned Panei Lawyer for the respondents/State opposed the petition and argued that the petitioner and the aiieged owners Tejram and Shivkurnar Sahu are residence of same viiiage. They were having definite knowiedge that the alieged wood was not owned by Tejram and Shivkumar Sahu and eartier it was not standing upon the -g, ‘>'”E3 lands of the aileged owners. They were having definite knowiedge that it was forest property and the present petitioner was transporting the forest products in his troiiey and at the time of seizure after ieaving the troiiey ioaded with forest prcducts, driver of the petitioner went for repair of tractor, wouid not save the owner from confiscation of tractor. . in order to save the vehicie from confiscation. owner of the vehicie was under obiigation to prove the ignorance of commission of forest offence committed and invoivement of his vehicle in commission of such offence, but in the present case, the petitioner has not taken the defence of ignorance of forest offence, but has taken the defence that it was not forest offence. 5 . The evidence adduced on behair’ of the Forest Department is sufficient to estabiish the fact that property was not owned by aiieged $hiv§<umar Sahu and Teiram. Atieged both the owners of the wooo‘ and the petitioner ar residence of the same viiiage where forest offence has been committed, The authorized authority after providing oppottunity of hearing to the parties has passed the order for confiscation which has been affirmed by the appeiiate authority and revisionai authority. . On due consideration. i do not find any iiiegaiity or jurisdictionai error in passing such orders by the aforesaid authorities warranting interference in exercise of supervisory iurisdiction under Articie 226 of the Constitution of india. ‘iO.Consequentiy, the writ petition being without substance is iiabie to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/— T.P. Sharma Judge ",7 _.,/ , _