Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 915 (MP)

Ganpat Prasad Kol v. State of M. P.

2013-08-06

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2013
JUDGMENT A.K. Shrivastava, J.:- By this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the validity of the impugned orders dated 30.08.2001 Annexure P/7 passed by respondent no.2, order dated 29.12.2011Annexure P/9 passed by the appellate authority (respondent no.3) and the order dated 23.4.2002 Annexure P/11 passed by the revisional authority. 2. No exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this petition. Suffice it to say in the forest area illegal agriculture was being made by a tractor bearing Chasis no. 0055521384 and Engine no. C.O. 5552119 R.I. but no number plate was affixed upon the said tractor. The tractor was of Mahendra Company. Admittedly, the said tractor belonged to the petitioner Ganpat Prasad Kol. Since by the said tractor cultivation was being made in the forest area, the forest authorities registered an offence and seized the tractor. 3. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner that why the said tractor be not confiscated. In reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner submitted that cultivation was being made by the said tractor by Sukhlal and the present petitioner was not present there when the cultivation was being made, hence the show cause notice is illegal. Other averments were also denied and several averments were made in the reply. 4. The respondent no.2 after holding an enquiry found that since the impugned tractor was used for cultivating the land of reserved forest area, therefore, directed to confiscate the tractor by its order dated 30.8.2001 (annexure P/7). The first appeal which was filed by the petitioner before respondent no.3 vide annexure P/8 was dismissed by order dated 29.12.2001 (annexure P/9). Thereafter the petitioner preferred a revision No.16/2002 before learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa who also by its order dated 23.4.2002 (annexure P/11) dismissed the revision of the petitioner. Hence, this petition has been filed by the petitioner. 5. The contention of Shri Y.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner being the owner of the impugned tractor was not aware that said Sukhlal is illegally cultivating the forest land. Thus, all the impugned orders suffer from illegality. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed heavy reliance upon two decision of this Court Keshav Prasad Gupta Vs. State of M.P. and Others 2013(2) M.P.L.J. 149 and Sarjoo Prasad Vs. Thus, all the impugned orders suffer from illegality. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed heavy reliance upon two decision of this Court Keshav Prasad Gupta Vs. State of M.P. and Others 2013(2) M.P.L.J. 149 and Sarjoo Prasad Vs. State of M.P. and Others 2006(2) M.P.L.J. 65 and submitted that the impugned orders by which it has been directed to confiscate the tractor be set aside. 6. On the other hand Shri Vivek Agrawal, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondents argued in support of the impugned order and submitted that nowhere this stand has been taken by the petitioner and, therefore, for the first time this argument cannot be accepted. It is also put forth by him that cogent reasons have been assigned by all the authorities directing to confiscate the impugned tractor and, therefore, the impugned orders need no interference. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted that he was not having any knowledge that the impugned tractor was involved in illegal cultivation in the reserved forest area and further he never directed said Sukhram to cultivate the forest land. On bare perusal of the reply of show cause notice Annexure P/2 dated 19.7.2001 filed by the petitioner this Court finds that no such stand was ever taken by the petitioner. According to me, this ground is having nexus with the facts and it should be raised in reply to the show cause notice. 9. The burden of proof that petitioner had no knowledge that his tractor was being used by Sukhlal, was on petitioner. But to prove this fact neither he cross-examined the departmental witness on this point nor gave his evidence on this point. He has not even made any suggestion to the prosecution witnesses in that regard that it was not in his knowledge that the impugned vehicle is being used for illegal cultivation in the forest area. The only defence which the petitioner has taken in the reply to the show cause notice as well as in during cross-examination of the departmental witnesses is that he was not present when the cultivation was being made by Sukhlal in forest area. 10. The only defence which the petitioner has taken in the reply to the show cause notice as well as in during cross-examination of the departmental witnesses is that he was not present when the cultivation was being made by Sukhlal in forest area. 10. According to me, merely because petitioner was not present it cannot be assumed that it was not in his knowledge that cultivation was being made illegally in the reserved forest area and, therefore, the stand which now the petitioner is taking for the first time in this Court in this petition cannot be accepted since it is having nexus with the facts and is also a disputed question of fact, hence aforesaid two decisions Keshav Prasad Gupta and Sarjoo Prasad (supra) are distinguishable. 11. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I do not find any merit in this petition. The same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.