AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—Heard both sides and perused the records.
These four writ petitions were filed by the original petitioner seeking to challenge the order made by the learned Sessions Judge, Salem, dated
23.09.1994 in Criminal Appeal Nos. 102 to 105 of 1993, confirming the order of the third respondent Deputy Conservator of Forest, Salem
Division made in C.V. Nos. 21 to 24 of 1993, confiscating the sandalwoods in possession of the petitioner. These writ petitions were admitted on
19.10.1995.
Pending the writ petitions, this Court, by an order, dated 08.10.2003, gave the following direction to the Special Magistrate for Sandalwood
cases:
In the light of the above, the learned Special Magistrate for Sandalwood Cases, Salem is directed to dispose of the calendar cases in
C.C.Nos.70 to 73 of 1996 pending on his file within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both the
petitioner and the respondents are at liberty to mention for listing of the writ petitions after the disposal of the calendar cases as directed by this
Court.
Pending the writ petitions, the petitioner filed miscellaneous petition in WMP No. 22931 to 22934 of 1995, seeking for a direction to the
respondents to deposit the price of the sandalwood belonging to the petitioner into this Court, which was confiscated by the third respondent. This
Court by a common order, dated 30.11.2000 dismissed those applications by stating that unless the petitioner succeeds in the main writ petitions,
no such direction can be granted.
It must be stated that criminal cases were registered against the petitioner and the same were tried before the court of Special Magistrate for
Sandalwood Cases, Salem in C.C.Nos.70 to 73 of 1996. The petitioner filed discharge petitions before the Trial Court. The Trial Court dismissed
those discharge petitions, by a common order dated 03.2.1997. As against the order refusing to discharge, the petitioner filed revision before this
Court in criminal revision Nos. 179 to 182 of 1997. This Court, by a common order dated 24.1.2002, dismissed those revision petitions and a
direction was given to put forth their contentions before the Trial Court during the trial.
But, for unexplained reasons, the trial could not be completed. Therefore, this Court directed the expeditious disposal of the criminal cases.
From time to time, the learned Judicial Magistrate, Salem sought for extension of time for completing the trial in C.C.Nos.70 to 73 of 1996 relating
to Crime Nos. 15 to 18 of 1993 and this Court also granted such time extension. By a judgment, dated 28.02.2005, the original petitioner was
found guilty of violating the Sandalwood Possession Rules and also Sections 36(A) to 36(E) of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act. He was imposed with
a punishment of 2 years imprisonment with Rs. 5000/- fine. Insofar as the impleaded writ petitioner is concerned, since he was not the owner of
the estate at the relevant time, he was acquitted of the charges.
The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Salem in Crl.A. No. 47/2005. The criminal appeal was allowed by the
appellate court by a judgment, dated 30.05.2006. The appellate court found that the petitioner had no mala fide intention or mensrea to keep in
possession of the sandalwood in violation of the Government Rules. With reference to the ownership of the property, the appellate court did not
render any finding and also found that the charge sheet filed on 29.01.1996 was barred by limitation.
The original petitioner also died on 25.12.2000 and his son had come on record stating that the confiscated sandalwood belong to the Cauvery
Peak Estate as he was already 50% owner of the Estate and the 50% belong to the original petitioner in terms of the judgment and decree in O.S.
No. 663 of 1993. Since his father had died, the entire estate belong to him.
On notice from this Court, the fourth respondent, the District Forest Officer, Salem has filed a counter affidavit, dated Nil in all the four writ
petitions.
The facts leading to the present case are as follows:
The petitioner sent a petition dated 23.08.1988 to the fourth respondent to arrange to lift the dead and wind fallen sandalwood trees from his
estate against payment. He furnished the measurement of 49 wind fallen and 198 dead sandalwood trees in Form 4 prescribed under the Tamil
Nadu Sandalwood Transit Rules, 1963. The then Forest Ranger of Yercaud Range requested him to produce the Chitta, Adungal and sketch of
the survey number so as to ascertain the ownership of those sandalwood as contemplated under the relevant rules. The original petitioner was also
summoned on many occasions by the Ranger to be present for physical verification of the sandalwood trees. Since no reply was forthcoming, the
Ranger requested the Tahsildar to confirm the ownership of the sandalwood trees, the date of assignment of the land by the Government and title
over the sandalwood trees.
Since they could not get any reply, on 17.08.1991, the Forester of the Yercaud Range went to the Estate and found only 119 sandalwood cut
trees. He prepared the sandalwood extraction and conversion Form and submitted a report to the fourth respondent.
It is stated that as per G.O.Ms. No. 120, Forest and Treasuries Department, dated 17.02.1979, on receipt of the verification report of the
ownership of land from the Revenue Authority, the District Forest Officer should again satisfy whether the Government had any interest in the trees
before granting permit for extraction. It was also stated that in case of pattas assigned after 1924 in respect of sandalwood bearing areas, the
Government is the absolute owner of the sandalwood. The petitioner, by a letter dated 5.3.1992, furnished the chitta, adungal and sketch of the
survey land for further action. While waiting for the reply from the Tahsildar, regarding the information over the title of the Government over the
sandalwood trees, the Assistant Conservator of Forest was directed by the fourth respondent to check the sandalwood trees. The Forest
Department also arrange to lift the sandalwood trees to their cleaning depot at Salem.
It was at that stage, the petitioner filed a suit in O.S. No. 724 of 1992 praying for an injunction restraining the department or any other person
from removing the sandalwood from the possession of the petitioner without following due procedure. He also prayed for an interim order in I.A.
No. 1303 of 1992. But, however, it transpires that no order was given by the learned Sub Judge, Salem especially after the counter was filed by
the respondents. Subsequently, the suit was transferred to the Court of Principal District Munsif and was taken on file as O.S. No. 861 of 1996.
The suit was dismissed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Salem on 9.7.1996 as not pressed.
In the meanwhile, under the orders of the I.G. of Police, Forest Cell and the Superintendent of Police, Forest Cell, C.I.D., the officials of the
Forest Cell seized 106.932 tonnes of sandalwood trees from the estate of the petitioner. The sandalwood was cut into pieces and were stored in 6
rooms in the godown of M.S.P. Plantations at Cauvery Peak and as well as at 2 quarters, cattle shed of the estate as well as in the office room of
Vaithangadu estate of Semmanatham Village. The seized sandalwood consist of dead and green sandalwood pieces. A mahazar was prepared on
22.05.1993 and a criminal case was also registered in Crime No. 15/1993, dated 22.05.1993 and on subsequent dates, three other criminal cases
were also registered in Crime No. 16 to 18 of 1993. The seizure of the sandalwoods were made in terms of Rule 3(1) of the Sandalwood
Possession Rules, 1970 read with Sections 36-A and 36-E of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act. The sandalwoods so seized were taken to the
additional Sandalwood depot, Salem.
The petitioner moved this Court with Crl.O.P.Nos.13737 to 13740 of 1993 to quash the F.I.R. This Court, by a final order, dated 24.3.1994,
dismissed those petitions with the following observations:
I am unable to say on the materials available, there is no conscious ''possession'' so as to bring within Rule 3-A of the Rules. I am also unable to
accept the contention that the sandalwood mentioned in some of the letters referred to above, are the same sandalwood found in the four places
for which the First Information Reports were registered. They are all matters which require investigation. Hence, the investigation cannot be
quashed at the threshold.
The third respondent issued a show cause notice to the petitioner u/s 49(b) of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, asking the original petitioner as to
why the sandalwood seized should not be confiscated to the Government in terms of Section 49-A of the Act. The petitioner sent a reply, dated
24.07.1993. It was stated by the petitioner that he had not committed any offence and the value of the sandalwood should be ascertained
properly. It was also stated that the sandalwood were grown by him in his patta lands situated in S. No. 43 of Northenchedue village and the
sandalwood is not the property of the Government. On 05.08.1993, the third respondent passed an order, confiscating the 372 sandalwood billets
and bundles seized by the Forest Cell, C.I.D. in favour of the Government u/s 49-A of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act. The confiscation order reads
as follows:
On 25.5.93, Inspector of Police, Forest Cell, C.I.D., Salem raided M.S.P. Plantation quarters at Cauvery Peak, Yercaud and seized 372
sandalwood billets and bundles weighing 14689.500 Kg. stored in Cattle-shed in the Cauvery Peak, Estate, Yercaud. The seizures were made in
the presence of V. Periasamy, Village Administrative Officer, Semmanatham and Thiru.P.Rajaran, Revenue Inspector, Vellakadai. The
sandalwood was in the form of Green Cut trees consisting of sapwood and heartwood mixed billets, some dried sandalwood, in the form of billets,
roots, chips, cleaned and uncleaned heartwood and sapwood. The case has been registered u/s 3(i) of Sandalwood Possession Rules, read with
36A & E of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, and the case was registered by Forest Cell, C.I.D., as per F.I.R. Dated 26.5.93. (Vide Forest Cell,
C.I.D. Offence No. 17/93).
The M.S.P. Plantation Estate Owner, was found in illegal possession of sandalwood billets for which show cause notice was issued by Deputy
Conservator of Forests, Salem on 19.7.93, which was acknowledgted by Thiru. M.S.P. Rajes, Estate Owner M.S.P. Plantation, Cauvery Peak,
Yercaud on 21.7.93. The explanation from M.S.P. Rajes was received on 27.7.93. The explanation was perused in detail. It was found in
explanation that the Estate Owner have written only that charges are baseless, unjust and illegal. But the Estate Owner has not produced any
possession licence. Further his stock contains green felled sandal trees which is highly irregular, because it is schedule timber and further cutting of
any green sandal trees require permission from competent authority of Forest Department. The explanation of the Estate Owner that it is a wind-
fallen tree is not correct, because the seized stock itself speaks that trees were green which have been cut and stored. Further nobody is
empowered to store any kind of sandalwood billets without obtaining a valid possession licence.
In the meanwhile, the petitioner moved for anticipatory bail from this Court on 25.08.1993 against his arrest.
The petitioner also preferred an appeal against the orders of confiscation being Criminal Appeal Nos. 102 to 105 of 1993 before the Sessions
Judge, Salem u/s 49-D of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, 1882. The appellate court, by a judgment dated 23.09.1994, dismissed the appeals and
confirmed the order of confiscation. The appellate court placed reliance of Section 36-A of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, wherein the possession of
sandalwood exceeding 5 Kgs., the possessor must have the licence granted by the District Forest Officer. u/s 40-A, if the person who claims
ownership, does not establish right or title, then those timber shall be deemed to be the property of the State. Section 40G also prohibits trade in
sandalwood and it also prohibits any person felling the sandalwood without the written permission of the Chief Conservator of Forest or any other
Officer. It is against this order of the appellate court, confirming the confiscation by the Officer, these writ petitions have been filed, as noted
already.
Mr. N. Jothi, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that Section 40-G of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act provides for a royalty for any
timber removed by the Government. He also stated that Section 40-H to 40-M of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act is almost equivalent to that of land
acquisition proceedings and the authorities are bound to conduct an enquiry to grant compensation. Since the petitioner is the owner of the
property, he is entitled for ''kudivila'', which is akin to royalty. According to the petitioner, by G.O.Ms. No. 1489, Revenue, dated 19.09.1924,
the Forest policy regarding reservation of sandalwood trees to be ratained by the Government only after the Government Order, dated
19.09.1924 and any possession before that date is not covered by the said order. Therefore, any sandalwood tree standing on the patta lands
assigned before 1924 belongs to the pattadars and the Government has no right over the said land. Even G.O.Ms. No. 120, Forest and Treasuries
dated 17.02.1979 providing permit for extraction of sandalwood standing in patta land belong to the owner and it only makes a permission for
possession in excess of 3 Kgs. from the Forest Department.
According to the petitioner, the sandalwood belongs to the petitioner and he is the owner of the sandalwood and he is the one who wrote to
the Department as early as 1988 to remove the fallen sandalwood trees and paid the ''kudivila''. He also stated that the Form 1 prescribed under
the Tamil Nadu Sandalwood Possession Rules 1970, will not apply to the petitioner''s case. It is submitted that the Government has admitted that
the property belonged to the petitioner in the counter affidavit filed in the earlier suit.
In the absence of any law in favour of the respondents, there is no power of confiscation. On such take over of the property of the petitioner,
he is entitled to get money equivalent of 81,201.50 Kgs. together with interest at the rate of 12%. He also referred to Sections 70, 71 and 72 of
the Indian Contract Act, 1872 to drive home the point that the respondents have not a mere moral obligation, but legal obligation to make the
payment. He also submitted even if there is no written bilateral contract for compensation, he is entitled for ''kudivila''.
In this context, he referred to several decisions of the various High Courts and the Supreme Court. The first case cited by him was the
judgment of the Supreme Court in O.N.G.C. and Another Vs. Asson. of Natural Gas Consuming Inds. and Others, . In that case, the Supreme
Court recognized the right of ONGC to demand interest on the basis of principles of deemed renewal of contract and restitution.
Similarly, he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in K.S. Satyanarayana Vs. V.R. Narayana Rao, for suggesting that
doctrine of undue enrichment will apply and for that purpose Section 70 to 72 can be pressed into service.
He also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pannalal Vs. Dy. Commissioner, Bhandara and Another etc., for the
purpose of showing Section 70 of the Contract Act applies even to corporate bodies and Government.
Further reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Piloo Dhunjishaw Sidhwa Vs. Municipal Corporation of The City of
Poona, to show that for the compensation of the goods supplied, the purchaser is bound to pay the market price of the goods.
He also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in V.R. Subramanyam Vs. B. Thayappa and Others, to show that if a party
to the contract has rendered service to the other not intending to do so gratuitously and the other person has obtained some benefit, the former is
entitled to compensation for the value of the services rendered by him.
Further reliance was placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal Vs. B.K. Mondal and Sons, and reply upon the
following passage:
If, in all these cases, what is done in pursuance of the contracts is for the benefit of the Government and for their use and enjoyment and is
otherwise legitimate and proper, S.70 would step in and support a claim for compensation made by the contracting parties notwithstanding the fact
that the contracts had not been made as required by Section 175(3).""(Government of India Act).
He further relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India (UOI) Vs. Amar Singh, for the purpose of showing that even there
is no treaty between two countries, namely India and Pakistan that the plaintiff who delivered goods to the receiving railways, then an implied
agency can be created between the receiving railway and the forwarding railway. In such circumstances, the liability of the forwarding railway was
governed by Section 72 of the Contract Act.
Though the learned Counsel relied on several other decisions of various High Courts for the very same propositions, for the sake of brevity,
they are not referred to here.
Per contra, Mr. S. Ramasamy, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioner has no right to own or dispose of
sandalwood and in all these cases, the owner is the State Government. In fact, by the advent of Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees)
Act, 1955, no person can cut any tree without permission if it is situated in the hill area as notified under the Act . Under the schedule to the act,
Yercaud area has also been notified. Inasmuch as the petitioner had the stock of not only dead trees, but also felled trees, he is not entitled to keep
in his possession of the same and it would be in direct violation of Section 40-G of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act and it reads as follows:
40-G. Royalties:- (1)Trees of the following Species that is to say, teak, black wood, ebony and sandal wood and also ivory and teeth of elephants,
whether grown or found on Government land or private property, are royalties and no trade shall be carried on in them unless they have been duly
obtained from the Government.
(2) The trees mentioned in Sub-section (1) shall not be felled by any person without the written permission of the Chief Conservator of Forest or
such other officer as, may be authorised by him in writing, but the owner of any property on which a teak, black wood, ebony or sandalwood tree
is standing may after obtaining the written permission of the Chief Conservator of Forests or other officer authorised by him as a aforesaid, and on
such terms as the Government may determine fell any such tree for his private use, and when any such tree is removed from such property on
account of the Government, the owner shall be entitled to a payment herein after referred to in this Chapter as kudivila at rates which the
Government may from time to time determine.
The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that for the purpose of providing royalty, procedure has been prescribed in terms of
Sections 40-H, 40-I, 40-J, 40-K, 40-L and 40-M. Such a procedure was not followed in the case of the petitioner, as the petitioner was not
entitled for any kudivila and the tree belonged to the Government. Even otherwise, in case of illegal felling of sandalwood trees, the Act requires
the procedure under Sections 49-A and 49-B of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act to be followed. He submitted that penalties have been provided for
breach of rules u/s 36.
u/s 36-F, a person has no right to trade in sandalwood trees other than the Government and the Government is also empowered to make rules
regarding dealing with such sandalwood trees. The petitioner is not entitled for any relief as he had committed violations of the Tamil Nadu Forest
Act and Tamil Nadu Hill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Act as well as Sandalwood Possession Rules, 1970. It has been found as a matter of fact
that the sandalwood confiscated from the petitioner were not dead trees, but cut trees and kept secretly in the godowns of the petitioner''s estate
and he can seek neither any compensation nor royalty.
The learned AAG drew the attention of the Supreme Court in a judgment reported in Divisional Forest Officer and Another Vs. G.V.
Sudhakar Rao and Others, . He relied upon the following passage found in para 12 for the purpose of showing that under the relevant provision of
the Forest Act, confiscation and imposition of penalty have two different procedures and they are independent of each other. The said passage
may be usefully extracted below:
A close, careful and combined reading of the various Sub-sections of Section 44, Section 45 and Section 58-A of the Act as introduced or
amended by Act 17 of 1976 leaves no doubt that the intendment of the Legislature was to provide for two separate proceedings before two
different forums and there is no conflict of jurisdiction as Section 45, as amended by the Amendment Act, in terms curtails the power conferred on
the Magistrate to direct confiscation of timber or forest produce on conviction of the accused. The conferral of power of confiscation of seized
timber or forest produce and the implements etc. on the Authorized Officer under Sub-section (2-A) of Section 44 of the Act on his being satisfied
that a forest offence had been committed in respect thereof, is not dependent upon whether a criminal prosecution for commission of a forest
offence has been launched against the offender or not. It is a separate and distinct proceeding from that of a trial before the court for commission of
an offence. Under Sub-section (2-A) of Section 44 of the Act, where a Forest Officer makes a report of seizure of any timber or forest produce
and produces the seized timber before the authorized officer along with a report u/s 44(2), the authorized officer can direct confiscation to
Government of such timber or forest produce and the implements etc. if he is satisfied that a forest offence has been committed, irrespective of the
fact whether the accused is facing a trial before a Magistrate for the commission of a forest offence u/s 20 or 29 of the Act.
He has also made a reference to the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of M.P. Vs. Suresh Kumar, . He also placed reliance upon the
following passages found in paragraphs 9 and 11 of the said judgment for the purpose of emphasizing that if the procedure for confiscation is duly
followed, then the obligation of the person aggrieved should satisfy about his ownership and legal possession.
... The statement of the owner of the truck was recorded by the competent authority and the explanation sought to be given by him did not find
favour with the said authority. The respondent owner did not produce any other material on record to discharge the burden under Sub-section (6).
If this be so, it cannot be said that the competent authority and the appellate authority committed any error in coming to the conclusion that the
respondent owner has failed to satisfy the authorised officer that the illegal activity committed by the driver of the truck was without his knowledge
or connivance. Mere ipse dixit of the respondent owner cannot be said to be sufficient evidence to discharge burden u/s 15(6) of the Adhiniyam. In
our opinion, the High Court has totally misread and misinterpreted provisions of Section 15(6). We, therefore, cannot sustain the reasoning of the
High Court and the Sessions Court as regards interpretation of Section 15(6).
....
... Since the respondent owner failed to satisfy the competent authority and the appellant authority as required u/s 15(6), we do not think that
the said authorities have committed any breach of the said provision. In view of the proved facts of this case, the order of confiscation of the truck
cannot be said to be arbitrary.
He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in State of Karnataka Vs. K. Krishnan, for the purpose of
showing that the provisions of the Act should be construed strictly and this enactment was enacted for the purpose of protecting and safeguarding
both the forest and their produce. The following passage found in para 7 may be usefully extracted below:
Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant State has submitted and we agree that the provisions of the Act are required to be strictly complied
with and followed for the purposes of achieving the object for which the Act was enacted. Liberal approach in the matter with respect to the
property seized, which is liable to confiscation, is uncalled for as the same is likely to frustrate the provisions of the Act. Before passing an order
for releasing the forest produce or the property used in the commission of the forest offence, the authorized officer or the appellate authority has to
specify the reasons which justify such release, apparently, prima facie excluding the possibility of such forest produce or the property being
confiscated ultimately. Generally, therefore, any forest produce and the tools, boats, vehicles, cattle, etc., used in the commission of the forest
offence, which are liable to forfeiture, should not be released. This, however, does not debar the officers and the authorities under the Act including
the appellate authority from passing appropriate orders under the circumstances of each case but only after assigning valid reasons. The liberal
approach in the matter would perpetuate the commission of more offences with respect to the forest and its produce which, if not protected, is
surely to affect mother earth and the atmosphere surrounding it. The courts cannot shut their eyes and ignore their obligations indicated in the Act
enacted for the purposes of protecting and safeguarding both the forests and their produce. The forests are not only the natural wealth of the
country but also protector of human life by providing a clean and unpolluted atmosphere.
Further, the learned AAG relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of West Bengal and Others Vs. Sujit Kumar Rana, . He
relied upon the following passages found in paragraphs 21 and 34 of the said judgment for the purpose of showing that when a corresponding
provision found in West Bengal Forest Act, 1927 (amended by WB Act 22/1988) was upheld by the Supreme Court and the interpretation
placed on the said Act.
The legislature has inserted the aforementioned provisions with a laudable object. Forest is a national wealth which is required to be preserved.
In most of the cases, the State is the owner of the forests and forest produce. Depletion of forests would lead to ecological imbalance. It is now
well settled that the State is enjoined with a duty to preserve the forests so as to maintain ecological balance and, thus, with a view to achieve the
said object forests must be given due protection. Statutes which provide for protection of forests to maintain ecological balance should receive
liberal construction at the hands of the superior courts. Interpretive exercise of such power should be in consonance with the provisions of such
statutes not only having regard to the principle of purposive construction so as to give effect to the aim and object of the legislature; keeping the
principles contained in Articles 48-A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution of India in mind. The provisions for confiscation have been made as a
deterrent object so that felling of trees and deforestation is not made.
The amendments carried out by the State of West Bengal by reason of Sections 59-A to 59-G in the Indian Forest Act provide for a complete
code. The validity or otherwise of the said provisions is not in question before us. An order of confiscation in respect of a property must be
distinguished from an order of forfeiture thereof. Although the effect of both confiscation and forfeiture of a property may be the same, namely, that
the property would vest in the State but the nature of such order having regard to the statutory scheme must be held to be different. A proceeding
for confiscation can be initiated irrespective of the fact as to whether prosecution for commission of a forest offence has been lodged or not. A
confiscation proceeding, therefore, is independent of a criminal proceeding. We may also notice that the State has been made liable to refund the
amount which has been deposited pursuant to an auction held in respect of the confiscated property only in the event the order of confiscation is
set aside or annulled u/s 59A(4)(b) thereof. No provision has been made in the statute unlike Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955
to the effect that the confiscated property or the amount deposited in the treasury pursuant to the auction of the confiscated goods would be
returned to the owner thereof in the event, the criminal trial ends in an acquittal.
Therefore, he pleaded the dismissal of the writ petitions.
Considering the rival submissions made on both sides, it must be held that the petitioner had not established that the confiscated sandalwood
belonged to them. They also failed to prove that any such licence was obtained before felling the trees which are allegedly found in their estate. No
licence was obtained to retain such huge quantities of sandalwood in terms of the rules in force. The petitioner was given ample opportunities
before ordering confiscation. They have also had the liberty of filing the appeal, which was rejected by the Sessions Court. In the absence of any
legal and enforceable right of the petitioner being established before this Court, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the confiscation as
ordered by the authorities of the Forest Department. Since it is found that the petitioner is not the legal owner of the sandalwood and there is valid
confiscation order was passed, they are eligible for any royalty or as well as interest on the amount to be paid.
In view of the above factual matrix and also the legal precedents, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are misconceived and devoid of
merits. Accordingly, all the writ petitions will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.