Supreme Court Upholds High Court Decision, Dismisses Appeals in Sandalwood Confiscation Case: Forest Department Directed to Adhere to Government Scheme
CASE NOTE & SUMMARY
Forest Offence, Sandalwood Confiscation, Kerala Forest Act, Government Scheme
1. Background:
- The appeals arising from the High Court judgment dated 13.08.2010.
- Writ petitions allowed by the High Court, setting aside the sandalwood confiscation order.
- Appeals filed by the State of Kerala and its Divisional Forest Officer, Munnar, against the High Court decision.
2. Parties and Claims:
- P.J. Antony and Cheriyan Kuruvila were petitioners in the writ petitions before the High Court.
- Claims of ownership and possession over specific land parcels in Marayoor Village.
- Applications made to Tahsildar for handing over dried and fallen sandalwood trees to Forest Department.
3. Inspection and Certificates:
- Reports of Taluk Surveyor confirming fallen sandalwood trees.
- Certificates issued by Village Officer for conducting auction of sandalwood trees.
4. Subsequent Events:
- Joint application submitted to Divisional Forest Officer.
- Seizure of sandalwood trees by Range Officer.
- Confiscation orders passed and subsequent legal actions.
5. High Court Judgment:
- Lack of evidence of forest offence.
- Rejection of Forest Department's claims based on procedural irregularities.
- Emphasis on documentation and actions of petitioners before authorities.
6. Analysis of Evidence:
- Critique of Divisional Forest Officer's dismissal of Revenue officials' reports.
- Questioning of enhanced figures of seized sandalwood trees.
- Rejection of Forest Department's presumption of forest offence.
7. Legal Principles:
- Interpretation of "reason to believe" under Forest Act.
- Clarification of presumption under Section 69 of the Forest Act.
- Requirements for formation of opinion by authorities.
8. Conclusion:
- Upholding High Court decision to set aside confiscation order.
- Directing Forest Department to proceed according to Government scheme.
- Dismissal of appeals without costs.
9. Additional Remarks:
- Mention of failure in maintaining records by Forest Department.
- Reference to a previous judgment highlighting lapses in forest management.
10. Disposition:
- Dismissal of appeals.
- Direction for expeditious compliance with Government scheme.
- No imposition of costs on parties.
11. Pending Applications:
- Dismissal of any pending applications.
ISSUE OF CONSIDERATION
Divisional Forest Officer, Munnar, Kerala, And Another vs P.J. Antony, Etc.
Citation: 2024 LawText (SC) (5) 141
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 9751-9752 Of 2011
Date of Decision: 2024-05-14
Case Title: Divisional Forest Officer, Munnar, Kerala, And Another vs P.J. Antony, Etc.
Before Judge: A.S. Bopanna, J ; Sanjay Kumar, J
Advocate(s): Nishe Rajen Shonker, Gaurav Aggarwal, K.Parameshwar, Saiby Jose Kidangoor, Kanti, Chinmay Kalgaonkar, Raji Gururaj
Appellant: Divisional Forest Officer, Munnar, Kerala, And Another
Respondent: P.J. Antony, Etc.