KASIRAM Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Divisional Forest Officer, Nizamabad, in exercise of the powers under section 71 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Area) Forest Act, 1355 Fasli (compounded an offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioner and accepted from the petitioner a sum of Rs. 9,300 towards the value of the property involved in the commission of the offence and an equal sum of Rs. 9,300 as compensation. The amount was paid and the property was released to the petitioner and there was a statutory discharge of the petitioner from all further liability under section 71 (2) of the Forest Act. The order of the Divisional Forest Officer accepting the payment and discharging the petitioner from further liability was passed on and December, 1961. Nearly one year later, on 1st November, 1962, the Conservator of Forests Directed that a sum of Rs. 54,000 should be collected from the petitioner, as according to him, the calculation made by the Divisional Forest Officer was not based on market rates, but was based on old scheduled rates. No notice was given to the petitioner before the Conservator of Forests decided to enhance the amount to be paid by the petitioner and the order was passed without his being heard. The Conservator of Forests purported to act in exercise of the powers conferred on him by virtue of a notification dated 9th April, 1356-F The notification is in these terms:

(2.) The contention of Mr. Dhanurbhanudu for the petitioner is that the notification is bad to the extent that it confers powers of revision on the Conservator of Forests because such revision is not contemplated by section 71 of the Forest Act under which provision the notification is made. Section 71 of the Act is as follows :-

(3.) Section 71 empowers the Forest Officer to compund an alleged forest offence "by accepting a sum of money by way of compensation. On payment of the compensation and the value of the property, the offender gets a statutory discharge from 'all further liability in respect of the alleged offence. The property in respect of which the offence is alleged has also to be released to him. If the Conservator of Forests wants to exercise his powers of revision he must do so before the offender is statutorily discharged, that is to say, the revisional powers must be exercised before the Forest Officer passes an order accepting the value of the property and the compensation stipulated by him. It is not open to the Conservator of Forests to wait for any length of time and exercise revisional powers whenever he likes without regard to the time that has elapsed. It is true that the notification does not prescribe any time, but where revisional powers of the nature vested in the Conservator of Forests is created by subordinate legislation it must be exercised within a reasonable tune and so as not to interfere with the rights created by the principal statute itself. I am not prepared to hold that the proviso to the notification is invalid because it does not prescribe any period within which the revisional powers are to be exercised. But I am of the view that the revisional powers conferred by the proviso to the notification must b,e exercised within a reasonable time so as not to interfere with rights created by statute. In the present case the Conservator of Forests purported to exercise his revisional powers long after the statutory discharge and his order is therefore bad. There is also another reason why the order of the Conservator of Forests cannot be sustained. As mentioned earlier the order was passed without hearing the petitioner and it is one of the fundamental principles of natural justice, universally recognised, that no order to the detriment of a person can be passed without hearing him. For these reasons the order of the Conservator of Forests, Nizamabad, in his L.R. No. 18154-61 M-1, dated 1st November, 1962, is quashed. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. Advocate's fee Rs. 100. Order quashed.