ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The State of Jharkhand has taken exception to the order dated 13th September 2012 by which the writ Court quashed the orders passed by the State authorities in Confiscation Proceeding No. 4 of 1995-96. 2. The main plank of the State of Jharkhand to challenge the writ Court's order is based on the notification dated 2nd November 1894 issued under the Indian Forest Act, 1878 by which the lands comprised under Plot Nos. 153, 154 and 163 of Mouza-Kalyani, Circle Talzhari, within district-Sahebganj were declared as protected forest. The aforesaid lands were subsequently notified as reserved forest by notification dated 25th February 1946 issued under section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the notification dated 28th May 1993 under section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 by the State of Bihar. 3. On 3rd December 1995, at about 03:40 PM, truck bearing registration no. BRK-8565, crusher machine with electric motor, diesel engine, stone chaillies etc. were seized by a raiding team led by the Authorised Officer of Talzhari range which comprised forest officials and sub-inspector of police. Confiscation Proceeding No. 4 of 1995-96 was initiated on the basis of a report prepared in this regard and notices were issued to the respondent nos. 1 and 2. The Divisional Forest Officer-cum-Authorised Officer passed order dated 26th February 1996 for confiscation of the seized articles and this order was affirmed by the appellate as well as the revisional authority. 4. In the proceeding of C.W.J.C. No. 441 of 1997, the aforesaid orders came to be challenged and the matter was remitted back before the appellate authority to take a decision after a full-fledged enquiry by the District Forest Officer and the District Mining Officer. In the second round of litigation, the appellate authority and the revisional authority again dismissed the petition preferred by the respondent nos. 1 and 2. 5. The writ Court has held as under : “26. There is nothing on record to show that on the alleged date of violation of provision of Forest (Conservation) Act, the plot, in question, was not broken for non-forest purpose. Further, it is evident from the enquiry report (Annexure-4) submitted after joint enquiry by the Divisional Forest Officer and the District Mining Officer that it was not clear that the articles were seized from the land, in question. 27. Further, it is evident from the enquiry report (Annexure-4) submitted after joint enquiry by the Divisional Forest Officer and the District Mining Officer that it was not clear that the articles were seized from the land, in question. 27. Learned Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj-cum-Appellate Authority, while passing his order, has relied on the said enquiry report, which does not speak anything about commission of forest offence on the land, in question. The impugned order of the said authority is not supported by any legal evidence and is wholly perverse. Learned Revisional Authority has also upheld the order of the learned Appellate authority without taking into consideration the said aspect. The revisional order is, thus, also wholly illegal and unsustainable. 28. Article 300A of the Constitution of India clearly provides that no person shall be deprived of his property saved by authority of law. 29. From the above discussion, I find that the seizure of the petitioners' articles and subsequently confiscation thereof is without any authority of law. The impugned orders are wholly without any legal basis and without jurisdiction. 30. For the reasons aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 26th February, 1996 (Annexure-5), 20th February, 1998 (Annexure-6) and 21st May, 2001 (Annexure-2) are quashed. 31. As a consequence, the respondents are directed to release the seized/confiscated articles to the petitioners forthwith. 32. It has been informed that the petitioners' truck has been auctioned and the sale proceed has been deposited in the Treasury. Since the truck has already been sold, the respondents shall release the sale proceed of the said truck to the petitioners forthwith.” 6. The writ Court after having considered the materials on record came to a finding that no notice under section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was brought on record. The writ Court further held that the enquiry report was also vague on the point that the articles belonging to the writ petitioners who are respondent nos. 1 and 2 before us were seized from the place which was claimed as reserved forest by the State. 7. Before us, except reiterating issuance of the aforesaid notices issued by the Government of Bengal and the Government of Bihar under the Indian Forest Act, 1878 as amended by the Indian Forest Act, 1927 no other material has been produced by the State of Jharkhand. 7. Before us, except reiterating issuance of the aforesaid notices issued by the Government of Bengal and the Government of Bihar under the Indian Forest Act, 1878 as amended by the Indian Forest Act, 1927 no other material has been produced by the State of Jharkhand. As would appear from the proceedings before the Authorised Officer and the enquiry report, the factum of commission of forest offence and seizure of articles from a place which was declared reserved forest were under serious dispute. The proceeding before the Authorised Officer is quasi criminal in nature and, therefore, the State was required to prove by leading cogent and convincing materials that the appellants were involved in commission of forest offence. 8. We, on appreciation of the materials on record, are inclined to hold that the State failed to establish commission of forest offence by the respondent nos. 1 and 2. It is not in dispute that the respondent no.1 was granted mining lease in the year 1970 with a renewal clause upto 20th June 2000. It is also not in dispute that at the relevant time the mining lease in favour of the respondent no. 1 was subsisting. Now if we are to accept the plea put forth by the State of Jharkhand that the area under mining lease was reserved forest declared under section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 by a notification dated 28th May 1993 by the State of Bihar, then the mining lease in favour of respondent no.1-M/s Vidyarthi Stone Works could not have been executed by the State. From this fact alone it would appear that at least this much stands established that there was considerable confusion as regards issuance of notice under section 20 declaring the area under the mining lease reserved forest. 9. Having held so, we do not find any merit in this Letters Patent Appeal and, accordingly, L.P.A No. 232 of 2014 is dismissed. 10. Consequential order by the authorities shall follow.