The Karnataka High Court has reaffirmed that under the Karnataka Forest Act 1963, any forest produce is presumed to be the property of the State government unless proven otherwise by the accused. The ruling came from Justice Suraj Govindaraj while dismissing a writ petition filed by one Raviraja Rai M, who had challenged the confiscation of his vehicle used for transporting timber allegedly without proper authorization.
The case revolved around the confiscation of a Mahindra pickup vehicle bearing registration number KA-19A-3964. On March 29, 2007, forest officers seized this vehicle at Santhya in Eswaramangala Nathanigemudnoor village in Puttur Taluk. The vehicle was found transporting five logs of Kiralbogi timber without a valid permit. Based on this, offences under Sections 32, 62, 71A, and 80 of the Karnataka Forest Act were invoked.
The vehicle owner, Raviraja Rai M, claimed he was unaware of any illegal activity and that the timber was transported from a private property belonging to one Gopal Bhaira. He maintained that the trees were not felled from a forest but from patta land, and that there was no evidence regarding when the trees were planted or whether they were part of government land.
However, the High Court rejected these arguments. Quoting Section 80 of the Karnataka Forest Act, the court observed,
“There is a presumption that a forest produce belongs to the State government and the said presumption has to be rebutted by the person against whom such an offence is alleged. In the present case the petitioner has not rebutted the said presumption.”
The court noted that the petitioner had neither produced any evidence nor any witness to support his claim. His argument that cross-examination of prosecution witnesses was sufficient to disprove the State's claim was also dismissed. The court emphasized that under Section 80, the burden of proof lies entirely on the accused.
The judgment also addressed the ownership of the land where the timber originated. It was revealed that the land had been granted to Gopal Bhaira through regularisation of unauthorized occupation under Section 94A(6)(c) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act. This provision states that trees standing on such granted land remain the property of the State.
“Even if the land were to be granted and it becomes a private property of the grantee, the trees if any standing on the said land shall continue to belong to the government,” the court noted.
The confiscation order, passed initially by the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Mangalore Division, was upheld by the Sessions Court in 2013. The High Court found no reason to interfere with the findings. The court observed that the petitioner himself was driving the vehicle and hence could not deny knowledge of the timber transport.
It is not that the vehicle was let out or leased to any third party. The owner himself was in control and cannot deny knowledge, the court held.
The High Court also dismissed the applicability of the earlier ruling in M.T. Joy v. State of Karnataka, citing that the case did not deal with the presumption under Section 80. Hence, the court ruled that the confiscation was justified under Sections 62 and 71B(2) of the Forest Act.
The writ petition was accordingly dismissed with no relief granted to the petitioner.
Case Title: Raviraja Rai M v. State of Karnataka
Case No.: WP No. 2579/2014
Date of Judgment: 28 April 2025
Judge: Justice Suraj Govindaraj
Counsel for Petitioner: Senior Advocate P.P. Hegde, Advocate Venkatesh Somareddy
Counsel for Respondents: AGA Mahantesh Shettar
