Orissa High Court
Sanjay Kumar Padhy vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 18 July, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 21-Jul-2025 16:59:40
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.457 of 2025
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Sanjay Kumar Padhy .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Deepali Mohapatra, Advocate
For Opposite Party (s) : Ms. Gayatri Patra, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-24.06.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-18.07.2025
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to quash the confiscation order passed under Section 56 of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972, and to release the tractor and trolley seized for alleged illegal transport of forest produce.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The petitioner is the registered owner of a Swaraj Tractor (Reg. No. OD-32-3447) and its Trolley (Reg. No. OD-32-3448), purchased on Page 1 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-Jul-2025 16:59:40 19.11.2014, with a commercial permit valid until 24.11.2019 to ply on all motorable roads within the state of Odisha.
(ii) On 05.06.2018, the tractor was detained by the Tahasildar, Seragada, while transporting blasting stone from Ambuabadi Stone Quarry to Valiatota. The Tahasildar allegedly threw the documents provided by the petitioner and seized the vehicle, subsequently informing forest officials.
(iii) The same vehicle was previously seized by the Tahasildar on 26.04.2016 for transporting blasting stone and was handed over to the forest officials. Confiscation proceedings were initiated under O.R. Case No. 07/2016/17, and the vehicle was confiscated on 04.11.2016.
(iv) The petitioner appealed the confiscation in F.A.O. No. 32/2016, and the District Judge ordered the release of the vehicle, but the forest officials did not comply. A writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 8355 of 2017) was filed, resulting in the court directing the release of the vehicle on 27.05.2017.
(v) The vehicle was re-seized on 05.06.2018 near Badagada 'C' UDPF for alleged transportation of forest produce (Mango Logs and Metal), contradicting the petitioner's claim that the vehicle was carrying blasting stone. A Writ Petition (W.P.(C) No. 12307 of 2018) led to an order for the proceedings to be concluded within three months.
(vi) Despite the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Authorized Officer issued an order on 05.12.2018 for the confiscation of the vehicle. The petitioner's appeal in F.A.O. No. 02/2019 was dismissed, but on 24.06.2024, the High Court quashed the appellate order and remitted Page 2 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-Jul-2025 16:59:40 the case for fresh consideration. The District Judge again dismissed the appeal on 13.11.2024.
(vii) The petitioner argues that the appellate court failed to consider the mandatory requirement of a government notification under Section 34 of the Orissa Forest Act for declaring the area as a protected forest. The petitioner also claims that no evidence supports the vehicle carrying forest produce, asserting it was transporting blasting stone, challenging the legitimacy of the confiscation.
(viii) The petitioner claims the Tahasildar demanded a bribe during the seizure and that discrepancies in the seizure list raise doubts about the legality of the seizure. The petitioner also points to two seizure lists, one prepared at the spot and another a month later.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The petitioner contends that the orders passed by the Authorized Officer and the District Judge are liable to be set aside, as those are based on incorrect findings and riddled with procedural errors, including the failure to consider the mandatory notification under Section 34 of the Orissa Forest Act and the lack of proof for the presence of forest produce.
(ii) The petitioner submits that the repeated seizures and confiscation of the vehicle without proper documentation or proof violate the petitioner's legal rights, including property rights under the Constitution.Page 3 of 11
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-Jul-2025 16:59:40
(iii) The learned District Judge erred in not taking into consideration the petitioner's allegations of bribery and the discrepancies in the seizure lists. The appellate court also failed to apply relevant legal provisions, particularly those concerning the requirement for a government notification declaring the area as a protected forest.
(iv) The petitioner argues that no alternative efficacious remedy is available, and thus, the writ petition is the only appropriate remedy to address the grievance.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of her contentions:
(i) The opposite parties argue that the petitioner's claims regarding the vehicle's contents, the receipt of documents, and the sequence of events are inconsistent and unsubstantiated by official records.
(ii) The seizure of the vehicle and the forest produce was conducted by following proper legal procedures. The petitioner's repeated claims of improper detention and documentation are false.
(iii) The petitioner has been previously involved in illegal activities related to the transportation of forest produce, as evidenced by the prior seizure and confiscation in 2016 and the 2018 incidents.
(iv) The confiscation order is consistent with the provisions of the Orissa Forest Act, as the area in question falls under UDPF, which does not require a government notification under Section 34 of the Act. Page 4 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-Jul-2025 16:59:40 IV. JUDGMENT OF THE COURT BELOW:
(i) The appeal, filed under Section 56(2-e) of the Orissa Forest Act, challenged the confiscation of a tractor and trolley by Forest authorities for transporting mango logs and blasting stones, allegedly removed from an Un-Demarcated Protected Forest (UDPF).
(ii) The appellant contested the confiscation after the tractor and trolley were seized in June 2018. The materials were claimed to be forest produce, and the case revolved around the status of the land and whether the materials qualified as forest produce under the Act.
(iii) The key issues were whether the materials were forest produce and whether the seizure occurred within a protected or unprotected forest, with the appellant arguing there was no government notification for the area.
(iv) The court held that the materials were indeed forest produce under the Orissa Forest Act. The appellant's defense lacked corroborative evidence, and the testimonies provided were dismissed as unsubstantiated, especially claims of bribery.
(v) The court dismissed the appeal, confirming the confiscation order.
The appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to challenge the seizure or prove the items were from a non-protected area.
V. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
5. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed before this Court.
Page 5 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-Jul-2025 16:59:40
6. In order to appreciate the merits of the case better, it is imperative for this Court to peruse the relevant provisions in relation to the case in hand. Under Section 33 of the Orissa Forest Act, "protected forest" has been defined as follows:
"33. Protected forest :- (1) The State Government may, by notification declare the provisions of this Chapter applicable to any land which is not included in a reserved forest, but which is the property of Government or, over which the Government have proprietary rights.
(2) The lands comprised in any such notification shall be called a "protected forest."
...."
7. The abovementioned provision makes it clear that "protected forest"
includes any Government land not in a reserved forest that the State declares protected. In practice, Odisha treats almost all forested or unreserved lands as protected forest (UDPF). In other words, unless land is explicitly not forest, forest laws apply. The Revised Working Plan (2014-24) for Ghumsur South Division, which is noted by the court below, records Badagada-C as Un-Demarcated Protected Forest. Therefore, the Tahasildar and forest officials had jurisdiction as the area was effectively protected forest without needing a fresh notification.
8. Apart from that, it is also imperative to peruse the provisions related to forest produce. Section 2(g) of the Act reads as follows:
"2(g) "forest" produce includes-
(i) the following whether found in, or brought from a forest or not, that is to say-
(a) timber, charcoal, caoutchouc catechu, wood- oil, resign, natural varnish, bark, Tussay Cocoon, lac, gums, roots of Page 6 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-Jul-2025 16:59:40 Patala Garuda, mohua flowers, mohua seeds, myrabolans, Kendu Leaves, sandalwood, tamarind, hill- broom, Siali leaves, Siali fibres, Sal seeds;
(b) wild animals and wild birds, skins, tusks, horns, bones, and all other parts or produce of wild life; and
(c) such other produce as may be notified by the State Government; and
(ii) the following when found in or brought from a forest that is to say
(a) trees and leaves, flowers and fruits and all other parts or produce of trees not hereinbefore mentioned;
(b) plants not being trees (including grass, creepers, reeds, and moss) and all parts or produce of such plants;
(c) honey, wax and arrowroot;
(d) peat, surface oil, rock, sand and minerals (including limestone, late rite, mineral oils and all products of mines or quarries)."
9. The perusal of the abovementioned provisions make it clear that Section 2(g) of the Act defines "forest produce" to include timber, bamboo, wild fruits, etc., and crucially includes minerals and quarry products. Specifically, clause (ii) (d) states that "rock, sand and minerals (including limestone, laterite, mineral oils and all products of mines or quarries)" found in or brought from a forest are forest produce. Thus, stone or ore extracted from a quarry in forest land is "forest produce." In this case, the seized tractor was near or within a forest area carrying stone and logged wood. Even if the petitioner claims the stone came from a registered quarry, its removal from protected forest land is prohibited. The contentions that the load was mere blasting stone from a pit or that the tractor was on a road construction site lack substantiation. Without clear proof the materials came from private Page 7 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-Jul-2025 16:59:40 land, they fall under the forest laws. Therefore, the materials came from private land, they fall under the forest laws. Hence, the materials meet the statutory definition of forest produce, and their transport (especially without transit permit) is punishable.
10. Once an offence under the Forest Act is set in motion, the law imposes a reverse burden on the accused. This view has been resonated in plethora of judicial precedents, including State of West Bengal v. Sujit Kumar Rana1 wherein it was held as follows:
"20...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 forest so as to maintain ecological balance and, thus, with a view to achieve the said object forest must be given due protection. Statutes which provide for protection of forest 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."
11. In the present case, Section 56(2-c) specifically states that no confiscation shall be made if the owner proves to the satisfaction of the authorized officer that the vehicle was used in carrying the forest produce without his knowledge or connivance and that each of them 1 AIR 2004 SC 1851.
Page 8 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-Jul-2025 16:59:40 had taken all reasonable and necessary precaution against such use." By the clear terms, the petitioner was required to satisfy the authorized officer of lack of knowledge and reasonable precautions. The evidence does not show this was done. No permits were shown; it appears the petitioner never informed the authorized officer of any prior permit or precautions. The Forest Act imposes this "stringent" burden precisely to deter illegal transport of forest produce. Absent a convincing discharge, the confiscation stands.
12. Another facet is whether the courts below could entertain release of the vehicle after confiscation proceedings. In Sujit Kumar Rana (Supra), the Supreme Court held that once confiscation proceedings have commenced, a criminal court's power to order release of the vehicle is excluded. This stance was reiterated in State of M.P. v. Uday Singh2 wherein the Supreme Court held that after the initiation of confiscation under the Forest Act, only the authorized officer can grant custody and the magistrate or High Court in exercise of inherent powers, cannot release the vehicle. Relevant excerpts are produced below:
"The necessary corollary of such provisions is that in a case where the Authorized Officer is empowered to confiscate the seized forest produce on being satisfied that an offence under the Act has been committed thereof the general power vested in the Magistrate for dealing with interim custody/release of the seized materials under CrPC has to give way. The Magistrate while dealing with a case of any seizure of forest produce under the Act should examine whether the power to 2 AIR 2019 SUPREME COURT 1597.
Page 9 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-Jul-2025 16:59:40 confiscate the seized forest produce is vested in the Authorized Officer under the Act and if he finds that such power is vested in the Authorized Officer then he has no power to pass an order dealing with interim custody/release of the seized material. This, in our view, will help in proper implementation of provisions of the special Act and will help in advancing the purpose and object of the statute. If in such cases power to grant interim custody/release of the seized forest produce is vested in the Magistrate then it will be defeating the very scheme of the Act. Such a consequence is to be avoided."
13. As per the abovementioned precedent, because the authorised officer properly invoked Section 56 against these vehicles, this Court's inquiry is on the legality of the confiscation, not on ordering interim release of vehicles. This Court, therefore, adjudicates the petition as a challenge to the final confiscation order, not as an application for release under CrPC.
14. In the light of these findings, this Court concludes that the confiscation order does not violate any statutory requirements, and the authorities acted within their legal bounds. The petitioner's failure to discharge the burden of proof, coupled with the evidence supporting the forest authorities' claims, results in the upholding of the confiscation order.
15. Therefore, the Writ Petition is dismissed. The confiscation of the tractor and trolley is affirmed. The authorities' actions, as outlined in the statutory provisions and supported by judicial precedents, are found to be legally valid and proportionate. The confiscation order stands, and any further proceedings related to the disposal of the Page 10 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 21-Jul-2025 16:59:40 confiscated property will follow the provisions of the Orissa Forest Act, 1972.
16. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr.S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 18th July, 2025/ Page 11 of 11