Whether forest officials are liable to pay damages if seized property was damaged due to their negligence?

 In the present case, the plaintiff seeks damages on the count that on account of the negligence on the part of the defendants the teakwood to which he was entitled has been damaged/decayed. It cannot be disputed that after the forest-produce was seized by the Authorities in the year 1991, it was the responsibility as well as the liability of the defendant No. 3 to take care of the same. On account of the said teakwood being kept in the open for more than seven years, it got decayed as it was in contact with nature. The material on record is, thus, sufficient to come to the conclusion that the defendants were negligent in taking care of the forest-produce when it was within their custody pursuant to the seizure. In the light of provisions of Section 43 of the said Act, it is held that the defendants would be liable for damages on account of the loss caused due to their negligent act in taking care of the seized teakwood.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Second Appeal No. 400 of 2004

Decided On: 22.03.2018

 Chintaman Vs.  State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.S. Chandurkar, J.

Citation: 2018(4) MHLJ 719

Print Page

Whether reserved forest can be given on lease by state govt without prior permission of central govt?

 Keeping in view, the aforesaid principles, it is held that scheduled suit land is a reserved forest duly notified under the provisions of Section 4 of the India Forest Act, 1927 and once the land is declared as reserved forest under the provisions of Section 4 of the Act of 1927, it becomes forest land within the meaning of Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, no allotment/lease Could have been made by the State Authorities without obtaining permission of the Central Government to plaintiff. Therefore, the first appellate Court is absolutely and perfectly justified in reversing the finding of the trial Court decreeing the suit holding the plaintiff to be the title holder of the scheduled suit land which is the reserved forest duly protected thus, the substantial question of law is answered accordingly.

Equivalent Citation: 2014(2)CGLJ500, 2014(IV)MPJR30,AIR 2015(NOC)527 CHH

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

S.A. No. 455/2003

Decided On: 10.03.2014

 Alorani
Vs.
 Divisional Forest Officer and Ors.

Coram:Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

Print Page