# Smt. Nirmala Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 1229
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-07-28
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 15231 of 2021
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-nirmala-devi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47372
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 161 - U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 - Section 101 -
Exchange - proceedings for exchange are
judicial proceeding - Assistant Collector
should pass complete and self contained
order u/s 161 approving the exchange of
land - such order must record compliance
of Rules 144 to 146 of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R.
Rules, 1952 - i.e. rental value of the
lands which are sought to be exchanged
and the basis of calculation of such rental
value has to be disclosed in the order
approving the exchange - without notice
to the Gaon Sabha and in absence of a
resolution recording consent of the Land
Management Committee the permission
to make an exchange suo moto by the
Assistant Collector on a mere report of
the Halka Lekhpal would be void - proper
resolution of the Gaon Sabha & not mere
personal consent of the Lekhpal or
Pradhan is required - report or consent of
the
Secretary
of
Land
Management
Committee /Lekhpal is not the consent of
the Gram Panchayat - Assistant Collector
cannot accord permission merely at the
instance
of
an
individual
seeking
exchange of his land - willingness of both
the parties, to exchange their respective
land is condition precedent - exchange of
land is not unilateral transaction of a
willing party to exchange, there must be
consent
of
the
person
with
whom
exchange has been sought - also order
u/s 161 must discuss the nature and
utility of lands to be exchanged (Para 5,
13, 14)
1230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
B. U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 161 - U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 - Section 101 - Court
directed that the State of U.P. through the
District
Magistrate
shall
be
made
necessary
parties
in
all
disputes
pertaining to the Gaon Sabha's lands and
in particular in proceedings under Section
161 - It shall be mandatory for the State
through the District Magistrate to file their
affidavits in all such disputes (Para 22)

C. Constitution of India Art. 226 - Writ of
mandamus - When cannot be issued - A
mandamus cannot be issued to enforce an
illegal order - Before exercising the
discretion in favour of any petitioner court
would be well advised to examine if an
illegal order is sought to be implemented,
or advantage is being taken of callous
attitude or apathy of officials to the
detriment of the State and larger public
interests in a manner contrary to law -
court in such matters can mould the relief
and pass appropriate orders to ensure
faithful implementation of the law and to
serve the interests of justice (Para 16)

D. Practice & Procedure - Affidavit - No
affidavit can improve the content of the
impugned order - order has to stand the
test of legality on the basis of the recitals
contained therein (Para 18)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited :

## Text

9 All Smt. Niramala Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1229
exercise and intent to obey the direction of
this Court is absolutely missing in this case.
For the repetition sake I hereby observe
that even departmental enquiry against the
petitioner has not been started within time
frame so there is no question to extend the
time to conduct the departmental enquiry
against the petitioner.

14. I have also noted one fact that
petitioner has already retired from service
on 29.2.2020, therefore, the departmental
enquiry against the petitioner after his
retirement particularly in view of the facts
and circumstances of the issue in question
as considered above, cannot be permitted.

15. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the issue in question and
also considering the decision of Full Bench
in re: Abhishek Prabhakar Awasthi
(supra) I do not permit the opposite party
no. 1 to conduct the departmental enquiry
against the petitioner pursuant to the
charge-sheet dated 18.10.2019 as the
aforesaid charge-sheet has been issued
beyond the stipulated period so fixed by
this Court vide order dated 11.7.2019.

16. Accordingly the writ petition is
allowed.

17. A writ in the nature of certiorari is
issued quashing the charge-sheet dated
18.10.2019 issued by the opposite party no.
1, as contained in Annexure no. 1 to the
writ petition.

18. Consequences to follow.
----------
(2021)09ILR A1229
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.07.2021

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ C No. 15231 of 2021

Smt. Nirmala Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Kamal Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 161 - U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 - Section 101 -
Exchange - proceedings for exchange are
judicial proceeding - Assistant Collector
should pass complete and self contained
order u/s 161 approving the exchange of
land - such order must record compliance
of Rules 144 to 146 of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R.
Rules, 1952 - i.e. rental value of the
lands which are sought to be exchanged
and the basis of calculation of such rental
value has to be disclosed in the order
approving the exchange - without notice
to the Gaon Sabha and in absence of a
resolution recording consent of the Land
Management Committee the permission
to make an exchange suo moto by the
Assistant Collector on a mere report of
the Halka Lekhpal would be void - proper
resolution of the Gaon Sabha & not mere
personal consent of the Lekhpal or
Pradhan is required - report or consent of
the
Secretary
of
Land
Management
Committee /Lekhpal is not the consent of
the Gram Panchayat - Assistant Collector
cannot accord permission merely at the
instance
of
an
individual
seeking
exchange of his land - willingness of both
the parties, to exchange their respective
land is condition precedent - exchange of
land is not unilateral transaction of a
willing party to exchange, there must be
consent
of
the
person
with
whom
exchange has been sought - also order
u/s 161 must discuss the nature and
utility of lands to be exchanged (Para 5,
13, 14)
1230 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
B. U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950 - Section 161 - U.P.
Revenue Code, 2006 - Section 101 - Court
directed that the State of U.P. through the
District
Magistrate
shall
be
made
necessary
parties
in
all
disputes
pertaining to the Gaon Sabha's lands and
in particular in proceedings under Section
161 - It shall be mandatory for the State
through the District Magistrate to file their
affidavits in all such disputes (Para 22)

C. Constitution of India Art. 226 - Writ of
mandamus - When cannot be issued - A
mandamus cannot be issued to enforce an
illegal order - Before exercising the
discretion in favour of any petitioner court
would be well advised to examine if an
illegal order is sought to be implemented,
or advantage is being taken of callous
attitude or apathy of officials to the
detriment of the State and larger public
interests in a manner contrary to law -
court in such matters can mould the relief
and pass appropriate orders to ensure
faithful implementation of the law and to
serve the interests of justice (Para 16)

D. Practice & Procedure - Affidavit - No
affidavit can improve the content of the
impugned order - order has to stand the
test of legality on the basis of the recitals
contained therein (Para 18)

Dismissed. (E-5)

List of Cases cited :

1. Shiv Murat Vs Board of Revenue, U.P. at
Allahabad 2017 (7)ADJ 252

2. Rambali & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2013)
118 RD 451

3. Smt. Badi Dulaiya Vs Gaon Sabha 1987 RD
246

4.
Narain
Singh
Vs
Gaon
Sabha
1975
ALJ(Revenue) 73

5. Gulshan Rai Vs Mitra Sen 1994 RD 125

6. Harihar Prasad Vs Jagdish 2001 RD 163
7. Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs St. of Guj.
1997 (7) SCC 622

8. Chandrika Prasad & ors. Vs Settlement Officer
Consolidation & ors. 2009 (8) ADJ 1619

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. By means of this writ petition, a
direction has been sought upon the respondent
no.2-Commissioner,
Gorakhpur
Division,
Gorakhpur to decide the Revision No. 1440 of
2015,
computerized
Case
No.
C20150500001440 (Ram Narain Vs. Smt.
Nirmala Devi), under Section 333 of the
U.P.Z.A.&LR.Act1.

2. The revision arises out of proceedings
for exchange of private land with land of Gaon
Sabha taken out under Section 161 of the
U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act. The provision is extracted
hereinunder:

"161. Exchange. - [(1) A bhumidhar
[* * *] may exchange with-

(a) any other bhumidhar [* * *] land
held by him; or

(b) any [Gaon Sabha] or local
authority, lands for the time being vested in it
under Section 117 [* * *] :

Provided that no exchange shall be
made except with the permission of an
Assistant Collector who shall refuse permission
if the difference between the rental value of
land given in exchange and of land received in
exchange calculated at hereditary rates is more
than 10 per cent of the lower rental value.

(1-A) Where the Assistant Collector
permits exchange he shall also order the
relevant annual registers to be corrected
accordingly.
9 All Smt. Niramala Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1231

(2)
On
exchange
made
in
accordance with sub-section (1) they shall
have the same rights in the land so received
in exchange as they had in the land given
exchange."

3. The provision has to be read with
Rules 144 to 146 of the U.P.Z.A.&LR.
Rules, 19522 to understand its working.
The Rules are extracted hereinbelow:

"144.
An
application [for
permission to make an]exchange shall
contain the following particulars and be
accompanied by the following documents:-

(1) The khasra number of the
plots-

(a) [* * *] which the applicant
wishes to receive and of the plots which he
offers in exchange of,

(b) [* * *]

(2)
certified
copies
of
the
khataunis relating'to the khatas in which all
such plots are included;

(3) [* * *]

(4) a statement showing the
details of any valid deeds mortgage or other
encumbrances with which the lands to be
exchanged may be burdened, together with
the names and addresses of lessees,
mortgagees
or
holders
of
other
encumbrances.

145. On receipt of an application
for [permission to make an]exchange of
land the Assistant Collector [shall cause to
be calculated the rental value of the land
proposed to be given in exchange and of
the land proposed to be received in
exchange at hereditary rates and] if he is
satisfied that the exchange is not invalid
according to the proviso to sub-section (1)
of Section 161, call upon the parties, the
lessees, mortgagees or holders of other
encumbrances, if any, to show cause why
the exchange should not be made. Every
such notice shall be accompanied by a copy
of the application which shall be supplied
by the applicant.

146. The Assistant Collector shall
thereupon decide the objections, if any, and
pass suitable orders. If he decides that the
exchange should be allowed, he shall also
make an order for the delivery of
possession, if necessary, and for the
correction of papers."

4. Section 161 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act, 1950 read with Rules 144, 145 and
146 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules, 1952
together comprise the legislative scheme
for exchange of private lands with Gaon
Sabha.

5. While interpreting the aforesaid
provision, a learned Single Judge of this
Court in Shiv Murat Vs. Board of
Revenue, U.P. at Allahabad3, held as
under:

"8. Section 161 of the Act
provides for exchange. A bhumidhar may
exchange with (a) any other bhumidhar
land held by him or (b) land vesting in any
Gaon Sabha or local authority under
Section 117. The proviso to Section 161
requires prior permission of the Assistant
Collector
upon
being
satisfied
that
conditions of rental value of the respective
land calculated at hereditary rates is not
more than 10 percent of the lower rental
value. On exchange being made in
1232 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accordance with sub-section (1) shall
confer same rights in the land received in
exchange as the bhumidhar had in the land
given in exchange.

9. Rule 144 requires that an
application for permission to make an
exchange shall contain the detail of khasra
number of the plots which the applicant
wishes to receive and of the plots which he
offers in exchange.

Upon
receiving
such
an
application, Rule 145 requires that the
Assistant Collector shall cause calculation
of the rental value of the land proposed to
be given in exchange and the land proposed
to be received in exchange at hereditary
rates and if he is satisfied that the exchange
is not invalid according to the proviso to
sub-section (1) of Section 161 the Assistant
Collector shall call upon the parties, if any,
to show-cause why the exchange should
not be made. Every such notice shall be
accompanied by a copy of the application.
If the Assistant Collector decides that the
exchange should be allowed, he shall also
make an order for delivery of possession, if
necessary, and for the correction of
papers.

11. On plain reading of Subclause (i) of Section 161 and Rule 145, it is
apparent that the Assistant Collector upon
being satisfied with the conditions of
exchange, as a consequence of the Rule he
is required to call upon the parties to showcause why the exchange should not be
made and thereafter under Rule 146 the
Assistant Collector is to decide the
objections, if any, and pass suitable orders.
It is, therefore, clear that without notice to
the Gaon Sabha and in absence of a
resolution recording consent of the Land
Management Committee the permission to
make an exchange suo moto by the
Assistant Collector on a report of the Halka
Lekhpal would be void not being mandated
under Section 161 of the Act.

14. Section 28B enumerates the
functions
of
the
Land
Management
Committee which, amongest other, is
charged with the general management,
preservation and control of all property
referred to in Section 28-A which includes
settling and management of land but does
not include transfer of any property for the
time being, vested in the Gram Panchayat
under Section 117 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R.
Act or under any other provisions of the
Act.

15. On a plain reading of the
provisions of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, it
is clear that the report or consent of the
Secretary of Land Management Committee
(Lekhpal) is certainly not the consent of the
Gram Panchayat which is conferred the
right and duty to the protection and
supervision of management and up-keep of
the property belonging to or vesting or held
by the Gram Panchayat. Lekhpal in the
capacity of a revenue officer submitting a
report sought by the Assistant Collector
would not reflect the consent of the Land
Management Committee for the reason that
the Lekhpal performs his duty in two
different capacity: (i) Secretary of Land
Management Committee and (ii) Officer of
the revenue, therefore, the plea of the
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
consent of the Lekhpal would be the
consent of the Gram Panchayat cannot be
accepted.

16. From the conjoint reading of
Section 161, as well as, the Rules relating
thereto, it transpires that the legislature has
extended facility upon a bhumidhar to
9 All Smt. Niramala Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1233
exchange his bhumidhari land from land of
another bhumidhar for their convenience
upon
satisfying
the
conditions
for
exchange. Such exchange cannot be valid
unless permission of the Assistant Collector
has been obtained. An exchange involves
the transfer of property by one person to
another and reciprocally the transfer of
property by that other to the first person.
There must be a mutual transfer of
ownership of one thing for the ownership
of another.

17. On the bare reading of the
meaning of the word ''exchange'' it would
transpire that it is not unilateral transaction
and is mutual one and it depends on the
readiness and willingness of both the
parties, i.e., the party which wants to
exchange and the party which accepts the
exchange proposed by the other party.
Therefore, I am of the considered opinion
that unless both the parties agree for
exchange, the Assistant Collector cannot
accord permission merely at the instance of
an individual seeking exchange of his land
with another individual unless he is willing
to exchange. The willingness of the parties
to exchange their respective land is
condition precedent under Section 161 of
the Act. The exchange of the land is not
unilateral transaction of a willing party to
exchange, there must be consent of the
person with whom exchange has been
sought and unless there is agreement of
exchange between the parties, there is no
such power vested with the Assistant
Collector under the statute to compel the
bhumidhar to exchange land with another
bhumidhar/Gaon Sabha against its will."

6. Experience shows that Section 161
of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act are often prone
to abuse, lands are often exchanged under
political
considerations
much
to
the
detriment of the Gaon Sabha and public
interests at large.

7. In Rambali and others v. State of
U.P. and others4, this Court declined to
mandamus the Assistant Collector to decide
the application under Section 161 without
finding due compliance of all relevant
provisions comprising the scheme of
exchange by holding as under:

"12....As I have noticed that the
exchange of land belonging to a bhumidhar
to another bhumidhar is not unilateral
transaction by a willing party to exchange,
there must be consent of the person with
whom exchange has been sought and
unless there is an agreement of exchange
between the parties, there is no such power,
vested with the Assistant Collector, under
the statute, to compel a bhumidhar for
exchange
of
his
land
with
another
bhumidhar against his will. I am of the
view that conferment of right of exchange
of the land under Section 161 of the Act
read with relevant rules as detailed is
subject to convenience of both the parties
to the exchange and in the eventuality the
willingness of both the sides to exchange,
the Section 161 imposes duty upon the
Assistant
Collector
either
to
grant
permission or to refuse the same if the
same is not inconformity with the Section
161 of the Act and the rules 144 to 147 of
the Rules.''

8. Adherence to the procedure under
Rules
144
to
146
of
the
U.P.Z.A.&L.R.Rules,1952, were held to be
mandatory in Smt. Badi Dulaiya v. Gaon
Sabha5.

9. It is noteworthy that the importance
of adherence to Rule 144 to 146 was also
1234 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
emphasized in Shiv Murat (supra) by
setting forth as under:

"23. Before disposing of the
application for exchange, a duty is cast
upon the Assistant Collector to ensure that
the provisions of Rule 144 to 146 are
literally followed. (Refer-Ashok Kumar v.
Mahavir Singh, 1994 RD 136; State of U.P.
v. M/s Techno Tower Ltd., 1986 RD 397).
The proceedings for exchange are judicial
proceeding and therefore, the Assistant
Collector should pass complete and self
contained order. Where the Assistant
Collector finds that parties involved in the
exchange have not consented, therefor, or if
any of them has withdrawn such consent,
he has no option but to reject the
application. (Fakir Chand v. Naib Johra
Zaidi, 1995 RD 405)." (Emphasis
supplied)

10. An exchange without noticing the
resolution of the Gaon Sabha regarding full
consent and the rational of such exchange
cannot be countenanced in law. Reference
may be had in this regard to the law laid
down in Narain Singh v. Gaon Sabha6,
and Gulshan Rai v. Mitra Sen7.

11. The importance of a proper
resolution of the Gaon Sabha and not a
personal consent of the Lekhpal or Pradhan
for purposes of such exchange was stated in
Harihar Prasad v. Jagdish8.

12. The manner of application of
mind by the Assistant Collector in
proceedings
under
Section
161
U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act was discussed by this
Court in Shiv Murat (supra) :

"26. The disputed land of the Gaon
Sabha is recorded as manure pit being a
public utility land and covered under Section
132 of the Act, no right or interest of a
bhumidhar can be acquired in respect thereof,
in view of sub-section C (vi) of Section 132.
On fulfilling the conditions of exchange the
Assistant Collector is not required to
mechanically recommend exchange on mere
asking of the parties, in particular, Gram
Panchayat Land. The Assistant Collector is
duty bound to consider whether the land
sought for in exchange is a public utility land;
or whether the land is being exchanged for a
Gram Panchayat land which is situated on the
proposed four lane road, thus, having
commercial value, etc."

13. In summation an order under
Section 161 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act,
1950 has to be self contained and should duly
reflect
compliance
with
all
relevant
provisions of law as stated in judicial
authorities in point discussed above.

14. In the case at hand the order dated
18.05.2011 has been passed by Sub
Divisional Officer, Bhatpar Rani, Deoria
approving the exchange of land in purported
exercise of powers under Section 161 of the
U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, 1950. The said order
dated 18.05.2011 does not record compliance
of Rules 144 to 146 of the U.P.Z.A.&L.R.
Rules, 1952. Further rental value of the lands
which are sought to be exchanged and the
basis of calculation of such rental value has
not been disclosed in the order approving the
exchange. This is an imperative requirement
of law. Resolution of Gaon Sabha and
contents thereof have also not been noticed.
The order dated 18.05.2011 is also silent on
the nature and utility of lands to be
exchanged. These infirmities vitiate the order
dated 18.05.2011.

15. The order dated 18.05.2011 fails
to carry out the mandate of Section 161 of
the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act read with Rules
9 All Smt. Niramala Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1235
141 to 146 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Rules,
1952 and contrary to the law laid down by
this Court in the body of judicial precedents
discussed earlier.

16. Mandamus is a discretionary
remedy
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India (Ref:Mansukhlal
Vithaldas Chauhan Vs State of Gujrat,
1997 (7) SCC 622). Before exercising the
discretion in favour of any petitioner the
court would be well advised to examine if
an
illegal
order
is
sought
to
be
implemented, or advantage is being taken
of callous attitude of the land management
committees or apathy of officials or
collection of parties to the detriment of the
State and larger public interests in a manner
contrary to law. A mandamus cannot be
issued to enforce an illegal order (Ref:
Chandrika
Prasad
and
others
Vs
Settlement Officer Consolidation and
others, 2009 (8) ADJ 1619). The court in
such matters can mould the relief and pass
appropriate
orders
to
ensure
faithful
implementation of the law and to serve the
interests of justice.

17. In fact this Court does not have
any hesitation to hold that the aforesaid
order dated 08.05.2011 is contrary to law
and cannot be executed. Though the order
dated 18.05.2011 is not under challenge,
the rights conferred by such order are
subject matter of this writ petition. In this
wake no rights flow to the petitioner from
the order dated 18.05.2011. A mandamus
cannot
be
issued
to
compel
the
implementation
of
the
order
dated
18.05.2011.

18. The preceding findings have been
made on the footing of the recitals
contained in the order dated 18.05.2011.
No affidavit can improve the content of the
order dated 18.05.2011. The order has to
stand the test of legality on the basis of the
recitals contained therein. The above
findings could not be disputed by the
learned counsel for the petitioner nor by the
learned Standing Counsel.

19. It is, however, open to the
petitioner to seek fresh proceedings for
exchange of land as per law.

20. While sitting in this jurisdiction I
have noticed the callous attitude of the land
management committees towards litigation
in regard to the Gaon Sabha lands. In a
sense Gaon Sabha lands are ultimately
State lands. The State Government entrusts
such lands to the Gaon Sabha. The State
Government by adopting the procedure
prescribed by law can also resume such
lands. Higher public interest demands that
the State Government should exercise
vigilance over exchange of such lands by
the Gaon Sabha with private lands.

21. These observations do not dilute
the rights of the Gaon Sabha accruing from
entrustment made by the State Government
to the Gaon Sabha.

22. Considering the fact that in a large
number of cases under Section 161 of the
U.P.Z.A.&L.R. Act, the interests of the
Gaon Sabha and the State lands are
compromised, it is directed that the State of
U.P. through the District Magistrate shall
be made necessary parties in all disputes
pertaining to the Gaon Sabha's lands and in
particular in proceedings under Section
161. It shall be mandatory for the State
through the District Magistrate to file their
affidavits in all such disputes.

23. In light of this discussion and
subject to the directions to the District
1236 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Magistrate and the State Government in the
immediately preceding paragraph, the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed and is
dismissed.

Copy of this order shall be
communicated by the Chief Standing
Counsel to:

(1) Principal Secretary Panchayat
Raj, Government of U.P., Lucknow.

(2)
Commissioner
Gorakhpur
Division, Gorakhpur.

(3) District Magistrate, Deoria.

(4) Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Bhatpar Rani, Deoria.
----------
(2021)09ILR A1236
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ C No. 16780 of 2021

Mangala Prasad ...Petitioner
Versus
The Principal Secretary through its Forest
Dept. Lko & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Sri Jai Prakash
Prasad

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Forest Act (16 of 1927) (as Amended By
U.P. Amendment Act 2000) - Sections 5,
26
&
52(A)
(1),
Section
69

-
Confiscation of the seized vehicle - Form
M.M.-11
recorded
total
permissible
weight as 5 cubic meters - but petitioner
illegally carrying 7.5 cubic meters of
sand
after
excavating
it
from
the
prohibited forest area, which was not
accounted for by him - Held - chronic
offenders of law and persons, who
recklessly
destroy
the
environment
without
any
care
for
the
future
generations have to be dissuaded by the
deterrence of lawful penalties - act of
petitioner is an offence under the Indian
Forest Act, 1927 - petitioner a repeat
offender
-
other
aggravating
circumstance was the brutal physical
assault & injuries on forest officials, by
the petitioner - vehicle was liable to be
confiscated
-
order
of
confiscation
proportionate to the offence committed
by the petitioner - Confiscation, proper
(17, 18, 19,20)

Dismissed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. The proceedings under Section 52
of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (Uttar
Pradesh Amendment Act, 2000) read with
Section 5/26 and Section 69 of the Indian
Forest Act, 1927 were instituted against
the petitioner. By the impugned order
dated
15.07.2020,
the
prescribed
authority/Divisional Forest Officer, Obra,
Forest Division, Obra, Sonebhadra in
proceedings by exercise of powers under
Section 52(A)(1) of the Indian Forest
Act, 1927 has directed the confiscation of
the seized vehicle called 'Tipper' in
popular
parlance
having
registration
No.UP64AT6465.

2. The cause of action under the
aforesaid
proceedings
against
the
petitioner arose upon registration of a
complaint
as
Range
Case
No.52/Dala/2019-20 by a forest official.
The complaint was registered by one
Sudarshan Prasad, Forest Guard.