Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Namdeo Narayan Dekate, filed a criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, seeking quashing of an order dated 19 June 2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, in Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 2007, and an order dated 27 August 2007 passed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Wardha, in Enquiry No. 50 of 2004. By these orders, wood seized from the petitioner in FIR No. 105/8 dated 19 November 2004 was confiscated to the government. The wood comprised 83 pieces admeasuring 2.310 cubic meters and 882 pieces admeasuring 19.649 cubic meters from Survey No. 70, Mouza Garamsur. The facts reveal that on 24 February 2000, Shankar Saduji Dhandale, the owner of the land, applied to the Range Forest Officer for permission to cut 860 teak trees from his survey number. Permission was granted on 21 June 2004 to cut 840 teak trees. The petitioner was given a power of attorney to cut the trees. On 17 May 2005, the petitioner complained that the cut wood had been burnt and requested disposal of the case. Earlier, on 13 August 1991, Shankar Dhandale had entered into a contract with Ramesh Krishnaji Ghangare regarding the standing trees and had also complained against the petitioner. The legal issue was whether the confiscation under Section 61A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was valid without notice to the petitioner. The petitioner argued that no notice or opportunity of hearing was given before the confiscation. The respondents argued that the confiscation was proper. The court analyzed that Section 61A requires a notice to the person from whom the property is seized and an opportunity of being heard. Since no such notice was given, the confiscation order was illegal. The court quashed both the orders and directed the release of the wood to the petitioner. The decision was in favor of the petitioner.
Headnote
A) Forest Law - Confiscation of Property - Section 61A Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Natural Justice - The petitioner's wood was seized and confiscated without any notice or opportunity of hearing. The court held that the confiscation proceedings under Section 61A require a notice to the person from whom the property is seized and an opportunity of being heard. Since no such notice was given, the confiscation order is illegal and liable to be quashed. (Paras 1-5) B) Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Orders - Inherent Powers - The High Court exercised its writ jurisdiction to quash the orders of the Additional Sessions Judge and the Deputy Conservator of Forest, as the confiscation was without jurisdiction and in violation of natural justice. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the confiscation of wood under Section 61A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 is valid when no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the confiscation order.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The orders dated 19 June 2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha, in Criminal Appeal No. 82 of 2007 and dated 27 August 2007 passed by the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Wardha, in Enquiry No. 50 of 2004 are quashed and set aside. The seized wood is directed to be released to the petitioner.
Law Points
- Natural Justice
- Confiscation Proceedings
- Notice Requirement
- Section 61A Indian Forest Act
- 1927
- Opportunity of Hearing
- Quashing of Confiscation Order
