Meera Dahiya vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others

Vishal Mishra, J

The present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the respondent No. 2 whereby vehicle of the petitioner has been confiscated.

It is the case of the petitioner that she is owner of a vehicle i.e. Sonalika tractor bearing registration number MP54A9463. It is alleged that on 22/12/2023 in forest area compartment no. PF 61 under the forest range Chandia, petitioner's tractor was found cultivating the forest land by the forest team with police personnel; the same was seized and forest offence vide POR no.7776/04 was registered. Thereafter vide order dated 27/12/2023 the prescribed authority was intimated for confiscation proceedings. The prescribed authority initiated the confiscation proceedings after issuing the notices and seeking reply from the petitioner. The petitioner denied the allegations of encroachment over the forest land and cultivation of forest land by her owned tractor in question. It is submitted that the petitioner's tractor has not uprooted/removed any forest produce as there is no evidence either in the examination-in-chief or in the cross- examination and, therefore, mere on the allegation of cultivation of forest land where no forest produce is damaged, broken, removed, the confiscation proceedings under Section 52 of Forest Act is nullity. The Tehsildar has also initiated dispossession proceedings against petitioner under Section 246 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code regarding khasra no.146 area 6.6450 alleging that the petitioner is said to have encroached area 1.541 hectare land belonging to Revenue Department. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 30/08/2024 has been passed confiscating the vehicle of the petitioner. Hence, this petition has been filed.

It is argued that no case for confiscation of vehicle in question is made out because the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Forest Act') are not attracted in the fact and circumstances of the present case. There should be seizure of some forest produce. However, there is no allegation with respect to seizure of any forest produce against the present petitioner and her vehicle has been confiscated by the authorities under the Forest Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an order passed by this Court in similar circumstances i.e. in the case of Naeem Akhtar Mansuri v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others dated 01.07.2025 passed in W.P.No.20142 of 2025 wherein placing reliance upon judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Sunderbhai Ambalal vs. State of Gujarat (2002) 10 SCC 283 the vehicle of the petitioner therein has been released on interim Supurdgi. He has prayed that a similar order be passed in the case of petitioner also.

Learned counsel appearing for the State has vehemently opposed the contentions and supported the impugned order on the ground that the entire exercise has rightly been carried out against the petitioner. The petitioner was found cultivating in the forest area with her tractor. Therefore, the provisions of the Forest Act are attracted in the matter in view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Uday Singh reported in (2020) 12 SCC 733. It is argued that the petitioner is having an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 52 A of the Forest Act and there is a specific bar under Section 52-C of the Forest Act to the jurisdiction of the courts, tribunals and authorities to entertain the cases of confiscation proceedings. Therefore, he has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The record indicates that the petitioner's tractor had been seized by the forest team and she was found cultivating in the forest area. The argument, that the Forest Act is not attracted in the present facts and circumstances of the case, is not available to the petitioner in terms of Section 52 of the Forest Act, which is reproduced as under:-

"8. Section 52 of the Forest Act forms a part of Chapter IX which deals with penalties and procedure. In relation to Madhya Pradesh, Section 52 was substituted by MP Act 25 of 1983 and is in the following terms:

"52. Seizure of property liable to confiscation and procedure therefor. - (1) When there is reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any reserved forest and protected forest or forest produce, the produce, and all tools, boats, vehicles, ropes, chains or any other article used in committing such offence, may be seized by any forest officer or police officer.

(2) Every officer seizing any property under this section shall place on such property a mark indicating that the same has been so seized and shall, as soon as may be, either produce the property seized before an officer not below the rank of an Extra Assistant Conservative of Forests by the State Government in this behalf by notification (hereinafter referred to as the authorized officer) or where it is, having regard to the quantity of bulk or other genuine difficulty, not practicable to produce property seized before the authorized officer, make a report about the seizure to the authorized officer, or where it is intended to launch criminal proceedings against the offender immediately, make a report of such seizure to the magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made: Provided that, when the forest produce with respect to which offence is believed to have been committed is the property of the Government, and the offender is unknown, it shall be sufficient if the officer makes, as soon as may be, a report of the circumstances to his official superior.

(3) Subject to sub-section (5), where the authorized officer upon production before him of property seized or upon receipt of report about seizure, as the case may be, is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed in respect thereof, he may by order in writing and for reasons to be recorded confiscate forest-produce so seized together with all tools, vehicles, boats, ropes, chains or any other article used in committing such offence. A copy of order of confiscation shall be forwarded without any undue delay to the Conservators of Forests of the forest circle in which the timber or the forest- produce, as the case may be, has been seized.

(4) No order confiscating any property shall be made under sub-section (3) unless the authorized officer-

(a) sends an intimation in form prescribed about initiation of proceedings for confiscation of property to the magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made;

(b) issues a notice in writing to the person from whom the property is seized, and to any other person who may appear to the authorized officer to have some interest in such property;

(c) affords an opportunity to the persons referred to in clause (b) of making a representation within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice against the proposed confiscation; and

(d) gives to the officer effecting the seizure and the person or persons to whom notice has been issued under clause (b), a hearing on date to be fixed for such purpose.

(5) No order of confiscation under sub-section (3) of any tools, vehicles, boats, ropes, chains or any other article (other than timber or forest-produce seized) shall be made if any person referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (4) proves to the satisfaction of authorized officer that any such tools, vehicles, boats, ropes, chains or other articles were used without his knowledge or convenience or, as the case may be, without the knowledge or convenience of his servant or agent and that all reasonable and necessary precautions had been taken against use of the objects aforesaid for commission of forest offence.

(6) The seized property shall continue to be under custody until confirmation of the order of the authorized officer by the Appellate Authority or until the expiry of the period for initiating 'suo motu' action by him whichever is earlier, as prescribed under Section 52-A.

(7) Where the authorized officer having jurisdiction over the case is himself involved in the seizure or investigation, the next higher authority may transfer the case to any other officer of the same rank for conducting proceedings under this section."

9 . Under sub-section (1) of Section 52, where there is a reason to believe that a forest offence has been committed in respect of any reserved or protected forest or forest produce, the produce, and all tools, boats, vehicles or articles used in committing the offence may be seized by any Forest Officer or Police Officer. Under sub-section (2), the officer seizing the property is required to place a mark of seizure and produce the property before the Authorised Officer or, where it is not practicable to produce the property seized, make a report to the Authorised Officer. Where it is intended to launch criminal proceedings against the offender immediately, a report of the seizure has to be made to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence on account of which the seizure has been made. Sub-section (3) stipulates that subject to sub-section (5), the Authorised Officer may upon being satisfied that a forest offence has been committed upon the production of the property seized or on the receipt of a report about the seizure, order the forest produce so seized, together with all tools, vehicles, boats or article used in the commission of the offence to be confiscated. No order of confiscation can be made unless the conditions mentioned under sub-section

(4) are complied with. Those conditions are:

(i) The Forest Officer must send an intimation in the form prescribed about the initiation of proceedings for confiscation of the property to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence;

(ii) The issuance of a notice to the person from whom the property has been seized or any other person who appears to have an interest in the property;

(iii) Affording a reasonable opportunity of making a representation against the proposed confiscation; and

(iv) Furnishing of an opportunity of being heard to the officer effecting the seizure and to the person to whom a notice has been given. Sub-section (5) provides that no order for confiscation can be passed if the person to whom a notice has been issued under clause (b) of sub-section (4) proves that the tools, vehicles, boats or article were used without her knowledge or connivance and that reasonable and necessary precautions had been taken against their use for the commission of a forest offence."

If the aforesaid provisions of the Forest Act are applied to the fact and circumstances of the case, then it is clearly seen that the petitioner was found cultivating in the forest area along with her vehicle. Sub-section 1 of Section 52 of the Forest Act clearly included the words that "in case a forest offence has been committed in respect of any reserved forest and protected forest area or forest produce; all tools, boats, vehicles, ropes, chains or any other article used in commission of such offence may be seized by any forest officer or the police authorities". Under these circumstances, it can safely be said that as the petitioner was found cultivating in the forest area using her vehicle, therefore, the provisions of the Forest Act will be attracted with the present facts and circumstances of the case.

Further, Section 52-A of the Forest Act clearly provides an appeal against the order of confiscation. Thereafter, Section 52-B of the Forest Act provides for a revision before the Court of Session against the order passed by the appellate authority. Therefore, against the confiscation order, the petitioner is already having alternative and efficacious remedies. Therefore, the present petition directly before the Court is not maintainable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uday Singh (supra) has held as under:

"29. Our analysis of the amendments brought by M.P. Act 25 of 1983 to the Indian Forest Act 1927 leads to the conclusion that specific provisions have been made for the seizure and confiscation of forest produce and of tools, boats, vehicles and articles used in the commission of offences.

29.1 Upon a seizure under Section 52(1), the officer effecting the seizure has to either produce the property before the Authorised Officer or to make a report of the seizure under sub-section (2) of Section 52. Upon being satisfied that a forest offence has been committed, the Authorised Officer is empowered, for reasons to be recorded, to confiscate the forest produce together with the tools, vehicles, boats and articles used in its commission. Before confiscating any property under sub-section (3), the Authorised Officer is required to send an intimation of the initiation of the proceedings for the confiscation of the property to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence. Where it is intended to immediately launch a criminal proceeding, a report of the seizure is made to the Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the offence.

29 . 2 The order of confiscation under Section 52(3) is subject to an appeal under Section 52-A and a revision under Section 52-B. Sub-section (5) of Section 52-B imparts finality to the order of the Court of Sessions in revision notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary in the CrPC and provides that it shall not be called into question before any court.

29.3 Section 52-C stipulates that on the receipt of an intimation by the Magistrate under sub-section (4) of Section 52, no court, tribunal or authority, other than an authorised Officer, an Appellate Authority or Court of Sessions (under Sections 52, 52-A and 52-B) shall have jurisdiction to pass orders with regard to possession, delivery, disposal or distribution of the property in regard to which confiscation proceedings have been initiated. Sub-section (1) of Section 52-C has a non obstante provision which operates notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the Indian Forest Act 1927 or in any other law for the time being in force. The only saving is in respect of an officer duly empowered by the State government for directing the immediate release of a property seized under Section 52, as provided in Section 61. Hence, upon the receipt of an intimation by the Magistrate of the initiation of confiscation proceedings under sub-section (4)(a) of Section 52, the bar of jurisdiction under sub-section (1) of Section 52-C is clearly attracted.

29.4 The scheme contained in the amendments enacted to the Indian Forest Act 1927 in relation to the State of Madhya Pradesh, makes it abundantly clear that the direction which was issued by the High Court in the present case, in a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC, to the Magistrate to direct the interim release of the vehicle, which had been seized, was contrary to law. The jurisdiction under Section 451 of the CrPC was not available to the Magistrate, once the Authorised Officer initiated confiscation proceedings."

The aforesaid judgement was not considered by this Court in the case of Naeem Akhtar Mansuri (supra). Therefore, the said order is of no help to the petitioner as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already considered the similar aspect of the matter and has held that the provisions of the Forest Act in such cases are applicable and there is a remedy available against the confiscation proceedings. Hence, no relief can be extended to the petitioner.

The writ petition sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.

However, the petitioner is at liberty to assail in the order passed by the authorities in appropriate proceedings.