- (1.) The petitioner by way of filing the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for quashing and setting aside Order dated 28.9.2010 passed in Forest Revision Case No. 49/2009 by the learned Principal Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Government of Jharkhand, order dated 12.8.08 passed by learned Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Bokaro, whereby, the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 10.7.2006 passed by learned Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Bokaro in confiscation Case No. 06/2004, whereby the vehicle of the petitioner has been ordered to be confiscated, has been dismissed. It is further prayed for quashing of the order dated 10.7.06 passed by the learned Authorized Officer-cum-Divisional Forest Officer, Bokaro in Confiscation Case No. 06/2004, whereby, the vehicle of the petitioner has been ordered to be confiscated and to pass an appropriate order directing the authority concerned to release the vehicle (Tractor No. JH 11B 4089 along with the trailer) in favour of the petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order as well as other materials placed on record.
(2.) On perusal of supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondent, it appears that Govindpur P.F. is a notified and demarcated protected Forest which has been notified as Protected Forest vide Notification no. OPF-10152/52-5301R dated 27th December, 1952 and this notification was published in January 21st, 1953 issue of the Bihar Gazette. Section 30 of the Indian Forest Act provides as under:- 30. Power to issue notification reserving trees, etc.:-The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette,- (a) declare any trees or class of trees in a protected forest to be reserved from a date fixed by the notification; (b) declare that any portion of such forest specified in the notification shall be closed for such term, not exceeding thirty years, as the State Government thinks fit and that the rights of private persons, if any, over such portion shall be suspended during such term provided that the remainder of such forest be sufficient, and in a locality reasonably convenient for the due exercise of the rights suspended in the portion so closed; or (c) prohibit, from a date fixed as aforesaid, the quarrying of stone, or the burning of lime or charcoal, or the collection or subjection to any manufacturing process, or removal of, any forest-produce in any such forest and the breaking up or clearing for cultivation, for building, for herding cattle or for any other purpose, of any land in any such forest. In view of above provision the notification issued under Section 30 shall remain in force for a period of 30 years. In the instant case there is nothing on record to show that subsequent there to any further notification under Section 30 has been issued.
(3.) It appears that the similar issue came before this Court and this Court held in case of Dilip Kumar Pandey @ Dilip Pandey Vs. The State of Jharkhand, 2012 3 JLJR 222. Para 8 to 10 and 13 to 15 read as under:- 8. No counter affidavit has been filed in this case but from perusal of the offence and prosecution report, it does appear that the petitioner, a contractor was entrusted to repair Neura-Ramkunda Road and while repairing work was being done a case was lodged though in course of repairing the road, damage was done to the forest land as well as to the trees on the forest land. Still petitioner who was doing public work can not in view of the decision rendered in a case of Arun Kumar Agrawal vs. State of Jharkhand be said to have committed any offence particularly when the land over which the said road was existing had already been acquired by the Government. 9. Further it does appear from the prosecution report that the prosecution has been laying claim the land as that of the forest land by virtue of notification issued in the year 1955 but in view of the provision as contained in Section 30 of the Forest Act, it lost its force after expiry of 30 years. 10. It is evidently clear from perusal of the aforesaid provision that any declaration made by the Government for the land to be a protected forest shall be expired after 30 years from the date of issuance of the notification. 11. Similar question fell for consideration before the Patna High Court in a case of Janu Khan and Others vs. State of Bihar, 1960 AIR(Pat) 213 wherein His Lordship observed as follows:- Even if I take into consideration the notification referred to above, which is dated the 29th December, 1952, there had to be another notification under Section 30 of the Indian Forest Act, protected forest to be reserved from a date fixed in that notification. 12. Similar view was taken by this Court in a case of Jagdish Mehta Vs. State of Jharkhand and Others . 13. Under this situation, one is constrained to hold that the land through which Neura-Ramkunda Road was passing through Kuti protected forest can never be taken to be forest land in absence of issuance of any notification in terms of Section 30(b) of the Indian Forest Act after expiry of 30 years of notification issued in the year 1955 and also on account of the fact that the land had already been acquired by the Government. 14. Under this situation, no offence can be said to have been committed by the petitioner, even if the petitioner indulged himself in repairing the road in question. 15. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding of C.F. Case No. 29 of 2000 including the order taking cognizance of the offence dated 19.3.2001 is hereby quashed.;