The Divisional Forest Officer vs P.Shanavas on 12 February, 2008

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

CRP No. 282 of 2004()


1. THE DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER,
                      ...  Petitioner
2. STATE-REPRESENTED BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER,

                        Vs



1. P.SHANAVAS S/O. HAMZA, PANDIYAD, PATHAPP
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :GOVERNMENT PLEADER

                For Respondent  :SRI.JOSEPH SEBASTIAN PURAYIDAM

The Hon'ble MR. Justice HARUN-UL-RASHID

 Dated :12/02/2008

 O R D E R
                              HARUN-UL-RASHID, J.

                       ----------------------------------------------

                               C.R.P. NO. 282 OF 2004

                       ----------------------------------------------


                     Dated this the  12th day of February, 2008


                                        O R D E R

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the State of Kerala and the

Divisional Forest Officer, Nilambur challenging the judgment of the

District Court, Manjeri dated 28.1.2004 in C.M.A.. No.1 of 2004.

2. It is the case of the revision petitioners that on 8.3.2001 while the

forest officials were on patrol duty, they found a mini lorry bearing

Registration No.KL-11-B/7135 belonging to the respondent carrying eight

unfinished cots of teak timber. Since, neither the respondent nor the driver

of the vehicle was able to produce the transit pass or bill of the furniture,

the furniture as well as the vehicle were seized as per order No.T-

1681/2001 dated 24.6.2003 of the Divisional Forest Officer on preparing a

mahazar. The respondent herein filed C.M.A. No.1 of 2004 challenging

the order passed by the Divisional Forest Officer. According to the

appellant in the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, there is no evidence to

C.R.P. NO.282/2004 2

show that the timber used for making the cots is forest produce and that

for mere violation of the Transit rules, confiscation of the vehicle is not

warranted. The court below found that seizure of the cots was not within

the forest or while being brought from the forest and, therefore, held that

there was no scope for application of Section 69 of the Kerala Forest Act,

1962. The court below also relied on the evidence of the Range Officer,

Edavanna who had submitted a report to the Divisional Forest Officer,

Nilambur stating that he had no case that the teak trees were felled from

the limits of the Range Office, Edavanna. The court below also referred

to the reports of the adjoining Range Officers who had also no case that

the trees in question were removed from within their ranges. The Range

Officer, Edavanna was also not able to trace the source of the timber.

Hence, on the basis of the materials on record, the court below found that

there is no evidence to show that the timber involved in the case was forest

produce and, therefore, the presumption under Section 69 of the Kerala

Forest Act is not applicable.

3. In the light of the findings on facts entered by the court below

that the timber used for making the cots in question is not forest produce,

the confiscation proceedings initiated by the Divisional Forest Officer

cannot stand.

C.R.P. NO.282/2004 3

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is without any merit and it is

accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

(HARUN-UL-RASHID, JUDGE)

sp/

C.R.P. NO.282/2004 4

HAURN-UL-RASHID, J.

C.R.P. NO.282/2004

O R D E R

12th TH FEBRUARY, 2008