OM KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) order passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Doda, copy whereof is Annexure, 'F' is subject matter of challenge in this petition. A finding has been recorded by the said Deputy Commissioner to the effect that the petitioner had cut some trees in violation of provisions contained in Section 38 of the Land Revenue Act. This Section imposes penalty on any person who deals with the trees in contravention of the provisions contained in Sections 35, 36 and 37 of the Land Revenue Act. The concerned Deputy Commissioner has come to the conclusion that in all 90 trees were cut. Its value has been determined and the petitioners have been called upon to pay Rs. 1,83,729 and 90,000. It is this order which is subject matter of challenge in this petition. What is sought to be urged is that in 1981 permission was granted to the petitioners to cut 10 Deodar trees. These trees were standing in Khasra No. 355. It is submitted that these trees were cut in the year 1981. Latter on, some proceedings were initiated against the petitioners. One of the co-sharer in the above khasra number made a complaint with regard to cutting of the trees. The matter was taken up by the Judicial Magistrate Bhaderwah. An order was passed by the said Magistrate, holding that police authorities cannot intervene in the matter. It was observed that whenever property is seized by the police, it has to be restored to the persons from whose custody the property is taken. The case was taken to the Court of Session. The Court of Session made reference to this Court. An order Annexure-C came to be passed by this Court on 19/08/1989. In this order, facts were noticed in the opening para. This para is reproduced below :-

(2.) Ultimately, it was observed that person from whose possession property was seized is entitled to the return of seized articles. Following observations made by this Court, is being high-lighted. "It, however, remains that the police has found the case registered against Geeta Devi and her husband to be completely false and also that Geeta Devi extracted timber from her own property land in accordance with the permission granted by Dy. Commissioner Doda. It is also a fact that D.F.O. Bhaderwah after proper inquiry issued form No. 25 to Geeta Devi for transporting the timber to Jammu. The timber was seized in a case which has not been closed as not admitted. Under law timber is required to be returned to the person from whose possession same had been seized. Learned Sessions Judge seems to have ignored the above facts while making the reference for setting aside the order of Judicial Magistrate Bhaderwah. The order of Sub-Judge Judicial Magistrate Bhaderwah is maintained. Regarding pendency of civil suit in which an interim direction has also been issued, the Civil Court is required to dispose of the same in accordance with law. No order is, therefore, required to be passed in that regard by this Court."

(3.) The further fact is that an application is said to have been preferred before Shri Sudharshu Pandey, IAS, who was Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bhaderwah. This is said to have been filed on 16-4-1986. The requisite averments are made in Paragraph 10 (f) of the writ petition. For facility of reference, this is being reproduced below;