Madrasdated High Court · 2009

05.8.1993, weighing 55,643.500 kg. ; 10,870.500 kg. ; 14,689.500kg.; approximately to the value of Rs.1,24,08.500/- ;Rs.24,24,121/- ; Rs.32,75.750/- respectively in respect of CauveryPeak Estate as on 05.8.1993 and pay the same as Royalty to thepetitioner with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. (Prayeramended as per order dated 28.7.2003 in WPMP.No.35867, 35868 of2002, 35869 of 2002).PRAYER in WP.No.14419 of 1995 : Petition filed under Article 226of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ ofcertiorari calling for the records relating to C.V.No.24/93/E2,dated 05.8.1993 passed by the third respondent herein and confirmedby the second respondent in C.A.No.102 to 105 of 1993 on 23.9.1994and quash the same.For petitioner: Mr.N.Jothi for Mr.P.R.BalasubramanianFor respondents: Mr.S.Ramasamy, AAG assisted by Mr.S.N.Kirubanandam, Spl.GP (Forest)*****COMMON ORDERHeard both sides and perused the records.2.These four writ petitions were filed by the originalpetitioner seeking to challenge the order made by the learnedSessions Judge, Salem, dated 23.09.1994 in Criminal Appeal Nos.102to 105 of 1993, confirming the order of the third respondent DeputyConservator of Forest, Salem Division made in C.V.Nos.21 to 24 of1993, confiscating the sandalwoods in possession of the petitioner.These writ petitions were admitted on 19.10.1995.3.Pending the writ petitions, this court, by an order, dated08.10.2003, gave the following direction to the Special Magistratefor Sandalwood cases:"3.In the light of the above, the learned SpecialMagistrate for Sandalwood Cases, Salem is directed todispose of the calendar cases in C.C.Nos.70 to 73 of 1996pending on his file within a maximum period of two monthsfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both thepetitioner and the respondents are at liberty to mentionfor listing of the writ petitions after the disposal ofthe calendar cases as directed by this Court."4.Pending the writ petitions, the petitioner filedmiscellaneous petition in WMP No.22931 to 22934 of 1995, seeking for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ a direction to the respondents to deposit the price of thesandalwood belonging to the petitioner into this court, which wasconfiscated by the third respondent. This court by a common order,dated 30.11.2000 dismissed those applications by stating that unlessthe petitioner succeeds in the main writ petitions, no suchdirection can be granted. 5.It must be stated that criminal cases were registered againstthe petitioner and the same were tried before the court of SpecialMagistrate for Sandalwood Cases, Salem in C.C.Nos.70 to 73 of 1996.The petitioner filed discharge petitions before the Trial Court.The Trial Court dismissed those discharge petitions, by a commonorder dated 03.2.1997. As against the order refusing to discharge,the petitioner filed revision before this court in criminal revisionNos.179 to 182 of 1997. This court, by a common order dated24.1.2002, dismissed those revision petitions and a direction wasgiven to put forth their contentions before the Trial Court duringthe trial. 6.But, for unexplained reasons, the trial could not becompleted. Therefore, this court directed the expeditious disposalof the criminal cases. From time to time, the learned JudicialMagistrate, Salem sought for extension of time for completing thetrial in C.C.Nos.70 to 73 of 1996 relating to Crime Nos.15 to 18 of1993 and this court also granted such time extension. By a judgment,dated 28.02.2005, the original petitioner was found guilty ofviolating the Sandalwood Possession Rules and also Sections 36(A) to36(E) of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act. He was imposed with a punishmentof 2 years imprisonment with Rs.5000/- fine. Insofar as theimpleaded writ petitioner is concerned, since he was not the ownerof the estate at the relevant time, he was acquitted of the charges.7.The petitioner preferred an appeal before the AdditionalDistrict Judge, Salem in Crl.A.No.47/2005. The criminal appeal wasallowed by the appellate court by a judgment, dated 30.05.2006. Theappellate court found that the petitioner had no mala fide intentionor mensrea to keep in possession of the sandalwood in violation ofthe Government Rules. With reference to the ownership of theproperty, the appellate court did not render any finding and alsofound that the charge sheet filed on 29.01.1996 was barred bylimitation. 8.The original petitioner also died on 25.12.2000 and his sonhad come on record stating that the confiscated sandalwood belong tothe Cauvery Peak Estate as he was already 50% owner of the Estateand the 50% belong to the original petitioner in terms of thejudgment and decree in O.S.No.663 of 1993. Since his father haddied, the entire estate belong to him. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9.On notice from this court, the fourth respondent, theDistrict Forest Officer, Salem has filed a counter affidavit, datedNil in all the four writ petitions. 10.The facts leading to the present case are as follows:The petitioner sent a petition dated 23.08.1988 to the fourthrespondent to arrange to lift the dead and wind fallen sandalwoodtrees from his estate against payment. He furnished the measurementof 49 wind fallen and 198 dead sandalwood trees in Form 4 prescribedunder the Tamil Nadu Sandalwood Transit Rules, 1963. The then ForestRanger of Yercaud Range requested him to produce the Chitta, Adungaland sketch of the survey number so as to ascertain the ownership ofthose sandalwood as contemplated under the relevant rules. Theoriginal petitioner was also summoned on many occasions by theRanger to be present for physical verification of the sandalwoodtrees. Since no reply was forthcoming, the Ranger requested theTahsildar to confirm the ownership of the sandalwood trees, the dateof assignment of the land by the Government and title over thesandalwood trees.11.Since they could not get any reply, on 17.08.1991, theForester of the Yercaud Range went to the Estate and found only 119sandalwood cut trees. He prepared the sandalwood extraction andconversion Form and submitted a report to the fourth respondent.12.It is stated that as per G.O.Ms.No.120, Forest andTreasuries Department, dated 17.02.1979, on receipt of theverification report of the ownership of land from the RevenueAuthority, the District Forest Officer should again satisfy whetherthe Government had any interest in the trees before granting permitfor extraction. It was also stated that in case of pattas assignedafter 1924 in respect of sandalwood bearing areas, the Government isthe absolute owner of the sandalwood. The petitioner, by a letterdated 5.3.1992, furnished the chitta, adungal and sketch of thesurvey land for further action. While waiting for the reply from theTahsildar, regarding the information over the title of theGovernment over the sandalwood trees, the Assistant Conservator ofForest was directed by the fourth respondent to check the sandalwoodtrees. The Forest Department also arrange to lift the sandalwoodtrees to their cleaning depot at Salem.13.It was at that stage, the petitioner filed a suit inO.S.No.724 of 1992 praying for an injunction restraining thedepartment or any other person from removing the sandalwood from thepossession of the petitioner without following due procedure. Healso prayed for an interim order in I.A.No.1303 of 1992. But,however, it transpires that no order was given by the learned SubJudge, Salem especially after the counter was filed by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ respondents. Subsequently, the suit was transferred to the Court ofPrincipal District Munsif and was taken on file as O.S.No.861 of1996. The suit was dismissed by the learned Principal DistrictMunsif, Salem on 9.7.1996 as not pressed. 14.In the meanwhile, under the orders of the I.G. of Police,Forest Cell and the Superintendent of Police, Forest Cell, C.I.D.,the officials of the Forest Cell seized 106.932 tonnes of sandalwoodtrees from the estate of the petitioner. The sandalwood was cut intopieces and were stored in 6 rooms in the godown of M.S.P.Plantations at Cauvery Peak and as well as at 2 quarters, cattleshed of the estate as well as in the office room of Vaithangaduestate of Semmanatham Village. The seized sandalwood consist of deadand green sandalwood pieces. A mahazar was prepared on 22.05.1993and a criminal case was also registered in Crime No.15/1993, dated22.05.1993 and on subsequent dates, three other criminal cases werealso registered in Crime No.16 to 18 of 1993. The seizure of thesandalwoods were made in terms of Rule 3(1) of the SandalwoodPossession Rules, 1970 read with Sections 36-A and 36-E of the TamilNadu Forest Act. The sandalwoods so seized were taken to theadditional Sandalwood depot, Salem. 15.The petitioner moved this court with Crl.O.P.Nos.13737 to13740 of 1993 to quash the F.I.R. This Court, by a final order,dated 24.3.1994, dismissed those petitions with the followingobservations:"I am unable to say on the materials available, thereis no conscious 'possession' so as to bring within Rule3-A of the Rules. I am also unable to accept thecontention that the sandalwood mentioned in some of theletters referred to above, are the same sandalwood foundin the four places for which the First Information Reportswere registered. They are all matters which requireinvestigation. Hence, the investigation cannot be quashedat the threshold."16.The third respondent issued a show cause notice to thepetitioner under Section 49(b) of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, askingthe original petitioner as to why the sandalwood seized should notbe confiscated to the Government in terms of Section 49-A of theAct. The petitioner sent a reply, dated 24.07.1993. It was stated bythe petitioner that he had not committed any offence and the valueof the sandalwood should be ascertained properly. It was also statedthat the sandalwood were grown by him in his patta lands situated inS.No.43 of Northenchedue village and the sandalwood is not theproperty of the Government. On 05.08.1993, the third respondentpassed an order, confiscating the 372 sandalwood billets and bundlesseized by the Forest Cell, C.I.D. in favour of the Government underSection 49-A of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act. The confiscation orderreads as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "On 25.5.93, Inspector of Police, Forest Cell,C.I.D., Salem raided M.S.P. Plantation quarters at CauveryPeak, Yercaud and seized 372 sandalwood billets andbundles weighing 14689.500 Kg. stored in Cattle-shed inthe Cauvery Peak, Estate, Yercaud. The seizures were madein the presence of V.Periasamy, Village AdministrativeOfficer, Semmanatham and Thiru.P.Rajaran, RevenueInspector, Vellakadai. The sandalwood was in the form ofGreen Cut trees consisting of sapwood and heartwood mixedbillets, some dried sandalwood, in the form of billets,roots, chips, cleaned and uncleaned heartwood and sapwood.The case has been registered under Section 3(i) ofSandalwood Possession Rules, read with 36 A & E of theTamil Nadu Forest Act, and the case was registered byForest Cell, C.I.D., as per F.I.R. Dated 26.5.93. (VideForest Cell, C.I.D. Offence No.17/93).The M.S.P. Plantation Estate Owner, was found inillegal possession of sandalwood billets for which showcause notice was issued by Deputy Conservator of Forests,Salem on 19.7.93, which was acknowledgted by Thiru.M.S.P.Rajes, Estate Owner M.S.P. Plantation, Cauvery Peak,Yercaud on 21.7.93. The explanation from M.S.P. Rajes wasreceived on 27.7.93. The explanation was perused indetail. It was found in explanation that the Estate Ownerhave written only that charges are baseless, unjust andillegal. But the Estate Owner has not produced anypossession licence. Further his stock contains greenfelled sandal trees which is highly irregular, because itis schedule timber and further cutting of any green sandaltrees require permission from competent authority ofForest Department. The explanation of the Estate Ownerthat it is a wind-fallen tree is not correct, because theseized stock itself speaks that trees were green whichhave been cut and stored. Further nobody is empowered tostore any kind of sandalwood billets without obtaining avalid possession licence."17.In the meanwhile, the petitioner moved for anticipatory bailfrom this court on 25.08.1993 against his arrest.18.The petitioner also preferred an appeal against the ordersof confiscation being Criminal Appeal Nos.102 to 105 of 1993 beforethe Sessions Judge, Salem under Section 49-D of the Tamil NaduForest Act, 1882. The appellate court, by a judgment dated23.09.1994, dismissed the appeals and confirmed the order ofconfiscation. The appellate court placed reliance of Section 36-Aof the Tamil Nadu Forest Act, wherein the possession of sandalwoodexceeding 5 Kgs., the possessor must have the licence granted by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ District Forest Officer. Under Section 40-A, if the person whoclaims ownership, does not establish right or title, then thosetimber shall be deemed to be the property of the State. Section 40-Galso prohibits trade in sandalwood and it also prohibits any personfelling the sandalwood without the written permission of the ChiefConservator of Forest or any other Officer. It is against this orderof the appellate court, confirming the confiscation by the Officer,these writ petitions have been filed, as noted already.19.Mr.N.Jothi, the learned counsel for the petitioner submittedthat Section 40-G of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act provides for aroyalty for any timber removed by the Government. He also statedthat Section 40-H to 40-M of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act is almostequivalent to that of land acquisition proceedings and theauthorities are bound to conduct an enquiry to grant compensation.Since the petitioner is the owner of the property, he is entitledfor 'kudivila', which is akin to royalty. According to thepetitioner, by G.O.Ms.No.1489, Revenue, dated 19.09.1924, the Forestpolicy regarding reservation of sandalwood trees to be ratained bythe Government only after the Government Order, dated 19.09.1924 andany possession before that date is not covered by the said order.Therefore, any sandalwood tree standing on the patta lands assignedbefore 1924 belongs to the pattadars and the Government has noright over the said land. Even G.O.Ms.No.120, Forest and Treasuriesdated 17.02.1979 providing permit for extraction of sandalwoodstanding in patta land belong to the owner and it only makes apermission for possession in excess of 3 Kgs. from the ForestDepartment. 20.According to the petitioner, the sandalwood belongs to thepetitioner and he is the owner of the sandalwood and he is the onewho wrote to the Department as early as 1988 to remove the fallensandalwood trees and paid the 'kudivila'. He also stated that theForm 1 prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Sandalwood Possession Rules1970, will not apply to the petitioner's case. It is submitted thatthe Government has admitted that the property belonged to thepetitioner in the counter affidavit filed in the earlier suit. 21.In the absence of any law in favour of the respondents,there is no power of confiscation. On such take over of the propertyof the petitioner, he is entitled to get money equivalent of81,201.50 Kgs. together with interest at the rate of 12%. He alsoreferred to Sections 70, 71 and 72 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872to drive home the point that the respondents have not a mere moralobligation, but legal obligation to make the payment. He alsosubmitted even if there is no written bilateral contract forcompensation, he is entitled for 'kudivila'. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

22.In this context, he referred to several decisions of thevarious High Courts and the Supreme Court. The first case cited byhim was the judgment of the Supreme Court in O.N.G.C. v. Assocn. ofNatural Gas Consuming Inds. and others reported in AIR 2001 SC2796. In that case, the Supreme Court recognized the right of ONGCto demand interest on the basis of principles of deemed renewal ofcontract and restitution. 23.Similarly, he placed reliance upon the judgment of theSupreme Court in K.S.Satyanarayana v. V.R.Narayana Rao reported inAIR 1999 SC 2544 for suggesting that doctrine of undue enrichmentwill apply and for that purpose Section 70 to 72 can be pressed intoservice. 24.He also placed reliance upon the judgment of the SupremeCourt in Pannalal v. Dy. Commissioner, Bhandara and another reportedin AIR 1973 SC 1174 for the purpose of showing Section 70 of theContract Act applies even to corporate bodies and Government. 25.Further reliance was placed upon the judgment of the SupremeCourt in Pilloo Dhunji Shaw Sidhwa v. Municipal Corporation of theCity of Poona reported in AIR 1970 SC 1201 to show that for thecompensation of the goods supplied, the purchaser is bound to paythe market price of the goods. 26.He also placed reliance upon the judgment of the SupremeCourt in V.R.Subramanyam v. B.Thayappa and others reported in AIR1966 SC 1034 to show that if a party to the contract has renderedservice to the other not intending to do so gratuitously and theother person has obtained some benefit, the former is entitled tocompensation for the value of the services rendered by him. 27.Further reliance was placed upon the judgment of the SupremeCourt in State of West Bengal v. M/s.B.K.Mondal and Sons reported inAIR 1962 SC 779 and reply upon the following passage:"If, in all these cases, what is done in pursuance ofthe contracts is for the benefit of the Government and fortheir use and enjoyment and is otherwise legitimate andproper, S.70 would step in and support a claim forcompensation made by the contracting partiesnotwithstanding the fact that the contracts had not beenmade as required by S.175(3)."(Government of India Act).28.He further relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court inUnion of India v. Amar Singh reported in AIR 1960 SC 233 for thepurpose of showing that even there is no treaty between twocountries, namely India and Pakistan that the plaintiff whodelivered goods to the receiving railways, then an implied agency https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ can be created between the receiving railway and the forwardingrailway. In such circumstances, the liability of the forwardingrailway was governed by Section 72 of the Contract Act.29.Though the learned counsel relied on several other decisionsof various High Courts for the very same propositions, for the sakeof brevity, they are not referred to here. 30.Per contra, Mr.S.Ramasamy, the learned Additional AdvocateGeneral submitted that the petitioner has no right to own or disposeof sandalwood and in all these cases, the owner is the StateGovernment. In fact, by the advent of Tamil Nadu Hill Areas(Preservation of Trees) Act, 1955, no person can cut any treewithout permission if it is situated in the hill area as notifiedunder the Act . Under the schedule to the act, Yercaud area has alsobeen notified. Inasmuch as the petitioner had the stock of not onlydead trees, but also felled trees, he is not entitled to keep in hispossession of the same and it would be in direct violation ofSection 40-G of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act and it reads as follows:"40-G. Royalties:- (1)Trees of the following Speciesthat is to say, teak, black wood, ebony and sandal woodand also ivory and teeth of elephants, whether grown orfound on Government land or private property, areroyalties and no trade shall be carried on in them unlessthey have been duly obtained from the Government.(2)The trees mentioned in sub-section (1) shall notbe felled by any person without the written permission ofthe Chief Conservator of Forest or such other officer as,may be authorised by him in writing, but the owner of anyproperty on which a teak, black wood, ebony or sandalwoodtree is standing may after obtaining the writtenpermission of the Chief Conservator of Forests or otherofficer authorised by him as a aforesaid, and on suchterms as the Government may determine fell any such treefor his private use, and when any such tree is removedfrom such property on account of the Government, the ownershall be entitled to a payment herein after referred to inthis Chapter as kudivila at rates which the Government mayfrom time to time determine."31.The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that forthe purpose of providing royalty, procedure has been prescribed interms of Sections 40-H, 40-I, 40-J, 40-K, 40-L and 40-M. Such aprocedure was not followed in the case of the petitioner, as thepetitioner was not entitled for any kudivila and the tree belongedto the Government. Even otherwise, in case of illegal felling ofsandalwood trees, the Act requires the procedure under Sections 49-Aand 49-B of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act to be followed. He submitted https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ that penalties have been provided for breach of rules under Section36. 32.Under Section 36-F, a person has no right to trade insandalwood trees other than the Government and the Government isalso empowered to make rules regarding dealing with such sandalwoodtrees. The petitioner is not entitled for any relief as he hadcommitted violations of the Tamil Nadu Forest Act and Tamil NaduHill Areas (Preservation of Trees) Act as well as SandalwoodPossession Rules, 1970. It has been found as a matter of fact thatthe sandalwood confiscated from the petitioner were not dead trees,but cut trees and kept secretly in the godowns of the petitioner'sestate and he can seek neither any compensation nor royalty. 33.The learned AAG drew the attention of the Supreme Court in ajudgment reported in Divisional Forest Officer and another v.G.V.Sudhakar Rao and others reported in (1985) 4 SCC 573. He reliedupon the following passage found in para 12 for the purpose ofshowing that under the relevant provision of the Forest Act,confiscation and imposition of penalty have two different proceduresand they are independent of each other. The said passage may beusefully extracted below:"12. A close, careful and combined reading of thevarious sub-sections of Section 44, Section 45 and Section58-A of the Act as introduced or amended by Act 17 of 1976leaves no doubt that the intendment of the Legislature wasto provide for two separate proceedings before twodifferent forums and there is no conflict of jurisdictionas Section 45, as amended by the Amendment Act, in termscurtails the power conferred on the Magistrate to directconfiscation of timber or forest produce on conviction ofthe accused. The conferral of power of confiscation ofseized timber or forest produce and the implements etc. onthe Authorized Officer under sub-section (2-A) of Section44 of the Act on his being satisfied that a forest offencehad been committed in respect thereof, is not dependentupon whether a criminal prosecution for commission of aforest offence has been launched against the offender ornot. It is a separate and distinct proceeding from that ofa trial before the court for commission of an offence.Under sub-section (2-A) of Section 44 of the Act, where aForest Officer makes a report of seizure of any timber orforest produce and produces the seized timber before theauthorized officer along with a report under Section 44(2), the authorized officer can direct confiscation toGovernment of such timber or forest produce and theimplements etc. if he is satisfied that a forest offencehas been committed, irrespective of the fact whether theaccused is facing a trial before a Magistrate for thecommission of a forest offence under Section 20 or 29 of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Act."34.He has also made a reference to the judgment of the SupremeCourt in State of M.P. v. Suresh Kumar reported in (1997) 9 SCC 647.He also placed reliance upon the following passages found inparagraphs 9 and 11 of the said judgment for the purpose ofemphasizing that if the procedure for confiscation is duly followed,then the obligation of the person aggrieved should satisfy about hisownership and legal possession."9. ... The statement of the owner of the truck wasrecorded by the competent authority and the explanationsought to be given by him did not find favour with thesaid authority. The respondent owner did not produce anyother material on record to discharge the burden undersub-section (6). If this be so, it cannot be said that thecompetent authority and the appellate authority committedany error in coming to the conclusion that the respondentowner has failed to satisfy the authorised officer thatthe illegal activity committed by the driver of the truckwas without his knowledge or connivance. Mere ipse dixitof the respondent owner cannot be said to be sufficientevidence to discharge burden under Section 15(6) of theAdhiniyam. In our opinion, the High Court has totallymisread and misinterpreted provisions of Section 15(6).We, therefore, cannot sustain the reasoning of the HighCourt and the Sessions Court as regards interpretation ofSection 15(6).....11. ... Since the respondent owner failed to satisfy thecompetent authority and the appellant authority asrequired under Section 15(6), we do not think that thesaid authorities have committed any breach of the saidprovision. In view of the proved facts of this case, theorder of confiscation of the truck cannot be said to bearbitrary."35.He has also placed reliance upon the judgment of the SupremeCourt reported in State of Karnataka v. K.Krishnan reported in(2000) 7 SCC 80 for the purpose of showing that the provisions ofthe Act should be construed strictly and this enactment was enactedfor the purpose of protecting and safeguarding both the forest andtheir produce. The following passage found in para 7 may be usefullyextracted below:"7.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Statehas submitted and we agree that the provisions of the Actare required to be strictly complied with and followed forthe purposes of achieving the object for which the Act wasenacted. Liberal approach in the matter with respect to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the property seized, which is liable to confiscation, isuncalled for as the same is likely to frustrate theprovisions of the Act. Before passing an order forreleasing the forest produce or the property used in thecommission of the forest offence, the authorized officeror the appellate authority has to specify the reasonswhich justify such release, apparently, prima facieexcluding the possibility of such forest produce or theproperty being confiscated ultimately. Generally,therefore, any forest produce and the tools, boats,vehicles, cattle, etc., used in the commission of theforest offence, which are liable to forfeiture, should notbe released. This, however, does not debar the officersand the authorities under the Act including the appellateauthority from passing appropriate orders under thecircumstances of each case but only after assigning validreasons. The liberal approach in the matter wouldperpetuate the commission of more offences with respect tothe forest and its produce which, if not protected, issurely to affect mother earth and the atmospheresurrounding it. The courts cannot shut their eyes andignore their obligations indicated in the Act enacted forthe purposes of protecting and safeguarding both theforests and their produce. The forests are not only thenatural wealth of the country but also protector of humanlife by providing a clean and unpolluted atmosphere."36.Further, the learned AAG relied upon the judgment of theSupreme Court in State of W.B. and others v. Sujit Kumar Ranareported in (2004) 4 SCC 129. He relied upon the following passagesfound in paragraphs 21 and 34 of the said judgment for the purposeof showing that when a corresponding provision found in West BengalForest Act, 1927 (amended by WB Act 22/1988) was upheld by theSupreme Court and the interpretation placed on the said Act. "21.The legislature has inserted the aforementionedprovisions with a laudable object. Forest is a nationalwealth which is required to be preserved. In most of thecases, the State is the owner of the forests and forestproduce. Depletion of forests would lead to ecologicalimbalance. It is now well settled that the State isenjoined with a duty to preserve the forests so as tomaintain ecological balance and, thus, with a view toachieve the said object forests must be given dueprotection. Statutes which provide for protection offorests to maintain ecological balance should receiveliberal construction at the hands of the superior courts.Interpretive exercise of such power should be inconsonance with the provisions of such statutes not onlyhaving regard to the principle of purposive construction https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ so as to give effect to the aim and object of thelegislature; keeping the principles contained in Articles48-A and 51-A(g) of the Constitution of India in mind. Theprovisions for confiscation have been made as a deterrentobject so that felling of trees and deforestation is notmade.34.The amendments carried out by the State of WestBengal by reason of Sections 59-A to 59-G in the IndianForest Act provide for a complete code. The validity orotherwise of the said provisions is not in question beforeus. An order of confiscation in respect of a property mustbe distinguished from an order of forfeiture thereof.Although the effect of both confiscation and forfeiture ofa property may be the same, namely, that the propertywould vest in the State but the nature of such orderhaving regard to the statutory scheme must be held to bedifferent. A proceeding for confiscation can be initiatedirrespective of the fact as to whether prosecution forcommission of a forest offence has been lodged or not. Aconfiscation proceeding, therefore, is independent of acriminal proceeding. We may also notice that the State hasbeen made liable to refund the amount which has beendeposited pursuant to an auction held in respect of theconfiscated property only in the event the order ofconfiscation is set aside or annulled under Section 59-A(4)(b) thereof. No provision has been made in the statuteunlike Section 6-C of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955to the effect that the confiscated property or the amountdeposited in the treasury pursuant to the auction of theconfiscated goods would be returned to the owner thereofin the event, the criminal trial ends in an acquittal."Therefore, he pleaded the dismissal of the writ petitions.37.Considering the rival submissions made on both sides, itmust be held that the petitioner had not established that theconfiscated sandalwood belonged to them. They also failed to provethat any such licence was obtained before felling the trees whichare allegedly found in their estate. No licence was obtained toretain such huge quantities of sandalwood in terms of the rules inforce. The petitioner was given ample opportunities before orderingconfiscation. They have also had the liberty of filing the appeal,which was rejected by the Sessions Court. In the absence of anylegal and enforceable right of the petitioner being establishedbefore this court, this court is not inclined to interfere with theconfiscation as ordered by the authorities of the Forest Department.Since it is found that the petitioner is not the legal owner of thesandalwood and there is valid confiscation order was passed, they https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ are eligible for any royalty or as well as interest on the amount tobe paid.38.In view of the above factual matrix and also the legalprecedents, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners aremisconceived and devoid of merits. Accordingly, all the writpetitions will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order asto costs.VvkSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Secretary to Government, Forest Department, Chennai-9.2. The District and Sessions Judge, Salem 7. 3. The Deputy Conservator of Forests, Salem Division, Salem.4. The District Forest Officer, Salem. + 4 ccs to Mr. P. R. Balasubramanian, Advocate SR No.12838 to 12841+ 1 cc to the Spl Government Pleader (Forests) SR No.12876W.P.Nos.14416 to 14419of 1995 SSN(CO)SR/15.4.2009