STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SIDDIK HAJI IBRAHIM PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this application, the State has brought the order dated 30-11-1994, passed by the then learned Additional Sessions Judge at Vadodara, in Criminal Appeal No. 27 of 1994 on his file, setting aside the order dated 12-5- 1994, passed by the then Dy. Conservator of Forest at Chhota-Udepur, and directing the petitioner to hand over the teak wood seized together with Rs. 1,000.00, the amount of penalty, to the opponent, under challenge.

(2.) Owing to Narmada Dam Project certain lands and many villages were likely to be immersed in water. The Government of Gujarat planned for the rehabilitation of those affected not only providing lands elsewhere but building materials and some amounts also. The persons affected were permitted to take wreckage of their huts, and trees grown on their lands. Kanubhai Shankerbhai, Naika Jugla Vasava and others affected, migrated from Sinduri a Village in Dhule District of Maharashtra State to Suratalav/Tarsada along with wreckage, i.e., baulk, joists, raftars, poles, ridges, tiles and certain logs of teak wood grown on their lands. Being poor and in dire need of money for their livelihood, they decided to sell out the teak wood in surplus. The respondent residing at Godhra purchased 50 logs of teak wood from Kanubhai Shankerbhai and Naika Jugla Vasava. By hiring the truck GTB 6765 the teak wood purchased were being taken to Godhra on 28-4-1994. When the truck reached the Halol Forest Check-post, the round forest officer intercepted and checked. He suspected interloperring by illegal transportation of the forest produce as the driver of the truck was not having any pass or permit and there was no hammer mark of forest department on the logs. He, hence, attached the truck along with the woods; and report thereof was made to his higher officer. A case Pavagadh Round Cri. Register No. 6/94-95 was then registered and inquiry under the Indian Forest Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') was initiated. The truck was later on released, but the log-woods were seized under Sec. 52, keeping Sec. 26(1)(f) and (g) and Sec. 41(2)(b) of the Act in mind. Further the opponent was directed to pay Rs.1,000/ - by way of compensation. The order of seizure and compensation came to be passed by the Dy. Conservator of Forest on 12-5-1994. The respondent then preferred Cri. A. No. 27 of 1994 before the Court of Session at Vadodara. The then learned Addl. Sessions Judge at Vadodara allowed the appeal, set aside the order of the Dy. Conservator of Forest and ordered to hand over the seized woods and Rs. 1,000/ - to the opponent. Being aggrieved by such order, this petition is filed.

(3.) The learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that this petition under Art. 227 or 226 of the Constitution of India was not maintainable; the appeal ought to have been filed. To deal with the submission, the relevant provisions of the Act must be looked into. Admittedly under Sec. 52 of the Act, the goods are seized and so the seized goods are to be dealt with in accordance with Sec. 61A to Sec. 61G, added to the Act by amendment made by the State of Gujarat. As per Sec. 61-A forest produce seized under Sec. 52 are to be produced before the authorised officer who undergoing necessary procedure may pass the order of confiscation of the property. Any forest officer not below the Conservator of Forest empowered by State issuing notification may examine the record and make inquiry and may pass the order as deemed fit under Sec. 61-C. The party aggrieved by any order under Sec. 61-A or 61-C of the Act, can file appeal before the Sessions Judge having jurisdiction over the area in which the property to which the order relates to has been seized. Sec. 61-D(2) of the Act, makes the order of the Sessions Judge final and so the order passed by the Sessions Judge cannot be questioned in any Court of law by way of appeal or revision. However, High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India for limited purpose continues to hold the field. When that is so, the petition under Art. 227 is maintainable. This Court has way back in 1985 answered the point raised in the case of Manubhai Babubhai Patel v. Deputy Conservator of Forests, Valsad and Anr., [(1985) (2)] XXVI(2) GLR 836, holding that in such case petition is maintainable. But I may add, for limited purpose. The contention, therefore, fails.