Jhabboo Lal vs The State of Madhya Pradesh, Chief Forest Officer and Anil Sarathe

A.K. Shrivastava, J.—By this petition under Article 226 /227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought a direction to release the Tractor which has been confiscated by the respondents. The brief facts of the case are that the tractor in question was being used by the petitioner for agricultural purpose on the land reserved for forest. On being asked by the Forest Guards, the petitioner was not in a position to submit any Patta, receipt, etc. Eventually, the tractor No. MP28-AA-0252 alongwith cultivator was seized. One spear and axe was also seized on 12.07.2010 and a forest Case No. 367/2002 was registered. Since upon the land of forest illegally agricultural cultivation was being made by the petitioner in contravention to Section 33(1)(i) (State Amendment) therefore an offence has been registered and simultaneously the vehicle in question was also seized and was directed to be confiscated by respondent no. 3 vide order Annexure-P/1. Before passing the order of confiscation a detailed inquiry was made by respondent no. 3.

An appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the appellate authority who also dismissed the appeal upholding the order of confiscation passed by respondent no. 3. The revision application which was filed by the petitioner before the learned Sessions Judge, Chhindwara has also been dismissed by the impugned order dated 12.01.2012. All the three courts below have found that upon the forest land illegally the cultivation was being made by the petitioner. Before confiscating the vehicle in question full opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend the case.

In this manner this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

By placing reliance upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in Madhukar Rao Vs. State of M.P. and Others, and Single Bench decision of this Court in Dilip and Others Vs. State of M.P. and Others etc. etc., it has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner that this case is squarely covered within the para materia of these two decisions.

However, Shri Jain, learned Panel Lawyer submits that those decisions are not applicable since they do not pertain to the Indian Forest Act. Learned Panel Lawyer has placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in State of M.P. Vs. Shabir Khan and others, and State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Smt. Farida Bano, and hence prayed that this petition be dismissed.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties I am of the view that this petition deserves to be dismissed.

Since a pure finding of fact has been arrived at by original as well as appellate authority holding that the petitioner was using the impugned tractor for cultivating the forest land for agriculture and thus rightly it has been directed to confiscate the impugned tractor. The findings so recorded by original as well as appellate authority are pure finding of fact. Despite it learned revisional court also paid heed to the situation and gave a categorical finding that after due procedure prescribed u/s 52(4) of the Indian Forest Act, the order of confiscation has been made. Necessary information was also sent to Magistrate and it is on record. The petitioner was also heard before passing the order of confiscation. The decisions placed reliance by learned counsel for petitioner are not applicable in the present case since they do not relate to Forest Act. The findings recorded by original, appellate and revisional authority are based upon correct enunciation of the law and I do not want to deviate from those cogent reasons. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. Not costs.