M PRABHAKAR REDDY Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant (here in after called, the plaintiff) filed suit being O.S. No.72 of 1988 on the file of the Court of the II Additional Subordinate Judge, Warangal, for recovery of an amount of Rs.20,295/- (Rupees twenty thousand two hundred and ninety five only) with interest by declaring that the search, seizure and collection of compounding fee of Rs.20,000.00 (Rupees twenty thousand only) is illegal. In his plaint, he alleged that he purchased teak wood in two lots, got it sawn into sizes at two different saw mills and as he could not get permit, kept the cut teak wood at Ladella village with his cousin till 10-2-1988. When he was transporting the teak, the forest officials stopped the bullock carts, registered a case being P.O.R.No.79/B/87-88 W/N, dated 20-2-1988, and imposed compounding fee. As he was threatened with arrest, he paid the compounding fee. He alleged that the seizure and collection of compounding fee is illegal and therefore, he is entitled to such declaration and refund.

(2.) The respondents (hereinafter called, the defendants) denied the allegations and asserted that unless and until a transit permit is obtained under Andhra Pradesh Forest Produce Transit Rules, 1970 (Transit Rules, for brevjty), the timber cannot be transported and that the plaintiff paid the compounding fee on his own volition.

(3.) Based on the rival pleadings, the trial Court framed four issues. The plaintiff examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and marked Exs.Al to A6, whereas defendants examined D.W.I and marked Exs.Bl to B7. After considering the evidence and the relevant provisions of Transit Rules, the trial Court came to the conclusion that when a person transports sawn teak wood, no transit permit is required and therefore, the seizure and collection of compounding fee is illegal. Therefore, the trial Court decreed the suit. The appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial Court, aggrieved by which, the present second appeal is filed.