JUDGMENT : Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and State. 2. The petitioners have moved the Court for the following relief’s: That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ for setting aside the order dated 22.4.2014 passed by the respondent Secretary, Forest and Environment Department, Govt. of Bihar in Forest Revision Case No. 15/2013 as contained in Annexure-4 by which he has affirmed the order dated 28.9.2013 passed by the respondent District Magistrate Saharsa in Forest Appeal No. 1/2013 as contained in Annexure-3 and the order dated 16.3.2013 passed by the respondent Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Saharsa Forest Division, Saharsa in Confiscation Case No. 1/2013 as contained in Annexure-2 whereby the logs of sisam tree of the petitioner no. 1 as well as the tractor of the petitioner no. 2 i.e., Tractor bearing No. BR-19A4757 and Trailor have been confiscated under section 52 of the Indian Forest (Bihar Amendment) Act 1989. 3. The authorities had seized logs of shisham tree on tractor bearing No. BR-19A-4757 and trailor and confiscated the same under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The petitioner no. 1 claims to be the owner of the shisham logs, whereas petitioner no. 2 the owner of the tractor and trailor. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner no. 1 had cut some old shisham trees on his land and they were being transported by the purchaser on the tractor and trailor in question and, thus, the logs were not forest or government wood. It was submitted that even the local Sarpanch has certified that the shisham trees were cut from the land of the petitioner no. 1. Learned counsel drew the attention of the Court to Section 68 of the Act (Bihar Amendment) to contend that the petitioners are ready to pay the value of the property seized and confiscated, as would be estimated by such officer for release of shisham logs and the tractor and trailor in their favour and for conclusion of the proceedings against them. 5. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the Sarpanch has given a certificate after three months from the date of occurrence. Further, he submitted that the Mukhiya has, on the other hand, stated that no shisham tree on the land of petitioner no. 1 was cut. 5. Learned counsel for the State submitted that the Sarpanch has given a certificate after three months from the date of occurrence. Further, he submitted that the Mukhiya has, on the other hand, stated that no shisham tree on the land of petitioner no. 1 was cut. He further submitted that in enquiry, it has been found to have been cut from the Supaul canal government land. However, on a specific query of the Court as to whether in view of the provisions of Section 68 of the Act, the petitioner would be entitled to closure of all proceedings upon payment of the estimated value of the property seized and confiscated, learned counsel submitted that the law providing the same, if the petitioners so desire, the authorities would take steps in terms of the provisions of the Act. 6. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court is inclined to consider the plea of the petitioners for release of the articles in terms of Section 68 of the Act, as amended by the Indian Forest (Bihar Amendment) Act, 1989 (Bihar Act 9 of 1990) which reads as under: 68 (1) The State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, empower a forest officer:- (a) To accept from any person against whom a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed any forest offence other than an offence specified in clauses (c) and (d) to section 25, clauses (c) and (d) to section 33 or section 62 or section 63, sum of money by way of compensesion for the offence which such person is suspected to have committed, and (b) When any property has been seized as liable for confiscation, to release the same on payment of the value thereof as estimated by such officer. (2) On the payment of such sum of money, or such value, or both as the case may be, to such officer, the suspected person, in custody, shall be discharged, the property, if any seized shall be released, and no further proceedings shall be taken against such person or property. (3) Forest Officer shall not be empowered under this section unless he is a Forest Officer of a rank not inferior to that of an Assistant Conservator of Forest. 7. (3) Forest Officer shall not be empowered under this section unless he is a Forest Officer of a rank not inferior to that of an Assistant Conservator of Forest. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed off with a direction to the authorities concerned to estimate the value of the property seized and confiscated, separately for the shisham logs and for the tractor and trailor. The same be done within one month from the date of production of a copy of this order before the respondent no. 4. After doing so, the same shall be communicated to he petitioners within two weeks thereafter. If the petitioners deposit the money as estimated by the officer within two weeks from the order being communicated to them, the shisham logs would be released in favour of petitioner no. 1 and the tractor and trailor in question shall be released in favour of petitioner no. 2. However, the release of the tractor and trailor shall further be subject to the officer being satisfied with regard to the ownership of the same and after the petitioner no. 2 produces the relevant papers before the officer concerned. Upon the petitioners depositing the amount in terms of the present order and within the time specified, all proceedings arising out of such seizure and confiscation against the petitioners shall come to an end.