Ali Hasan Vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh

Ali Hasan vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

Type Court Judgment Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Mar 08, 2013

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1043683

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1043683
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On: Mar 08, 2013
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ali Hasan

Advocate Shri. Shivendra Pandey

Respondent

The State of Madhya Pradesh

Excerpt

..... make payment for the same. subsequently, on petitioner being acquitted of a criminal case no. 1338/2008 vide judgment dated 23.1.2012; wherein the offences registered against the petitioner under section 26 (1) (d) read with section 63 (b) of indian forest act, 1927 having been found not proved, the petitioner has amended the relief clause and seeks direction to command the respondents to return the goods seized by them on supurdnama or to pay compensation for loss of goods, i.e., 15 cubic meter of the log/wood in possession of respondents. taking into consideration the subsequent development an order was passed on 3.1.2013 as to ascertain as to what is the condition of the property seized and for that respondent no. 2, i.e., the divisional forest officer, forest division (general). dindori district dindori was directed to appoint an officer and the petitioner either himself or through his representative was permitted to conduct a joint inspection of the seized property and to submit a report. in joint inspection, report was furnished on 22.1.2013 wherein it was reported that “finys pkj o"kksza ls [kqys fmiks esa j[ks gksus ds dkj.k o"kkz ,oa /kwi ds dkj.k ydm+h dkyh im+ x;h gs rfkk eksle dk izfrdwy vlj ydfm+;ksa ij im+k gs a”. taking note of the aforesaid report the petitioner was granted leave to file a detail objection/claim with regard to compensation on 22.1.2013. it is informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that in furtherance to the leave granted on 22.1.2013 the petitioner has filed an application for taking the claim on record vide i.a. no. 3369/2013; whereby, it is stated that he is entitled for a compensation of rs.7,00,000/, the amount as appear from paragraphs 3 and 4 has been arrived at after taking into consideration escalation .....

Full Judgment

W.P. No. 9770 Of 2008 8.3.2013 Shri Shivendra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Smt.

Sheetal Dubey, learned Government Advocate for respondent State.

Heard.

This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India was initially for a direction to the respondents to issue transit pass for transportation of the wood lying in the field of the petitioner and to command the respondents to accept the said goods/ Sal pieces in the Godown and make payment for the same.

Subsequently, on petitioner being acquitted of a criminal case No. 1338/2008 vide judgment dated 23.1.2012; wherein the offences registered against the petitioner under Section 26 (1) (d) read with Section 63 (b) of Indian Forest Act, 1927 having been found not proved, the petitioner has amended the relief clause and seeks direction to command the respondents to return the goods seized by them on Supurdnama or to pay compensation for loss of goods, i.e., 15 cubic meter of the log/wood in possession of respondents.

Taking into consideration the subsequent development an order was passed on 3.1.2013 as to ascertain as to what is the condition of the property seized and for that respondent No. 2, i.e., the Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division (General). Dindori district Dindori was directed to appoint an officer and the petitioner either himself or through his representative was permitted to conduct a joint inspection of the seized property and to submit a report.

In joint inspection, report was furnished on 22.1.2013 wherein it was reported that “fiNys pkj o"kksZa ls [kqys fMiks esa j[ks gksus ds dkj.k o"kkZ ,oa /kwi ds dkj.k ydM+h dkyh iM+ x;h gS rFkk ekSle dk izfrdwy vlj ydfM+;ksa ij iM+k gS A”.

Taking note of the aforesaid report the petitioner was granted leave to file a detail objection/claim with regard to compensation on 22.1.2013. It is informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that in furtherance to the leave granted on 22.1.2013 the petitioner has filed an application for taking the claim on record vide I.A. No. 3369/2013; whereby, it is stated that he is entitled for a compensation of Rs.7,00,000/, the amount as appear from paragraphs 3 and 4 has been arrived at after taking into consideration escalation of price since 2007.

In the considered opinion of this Court there is no mechanism available in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to ascertain as to how much compensation petitioner would be entitled for in respect of the alleged deterioration of the quality of wood in question. Since the petitioner has already raised his claim the respondent No. 2, i.e, the Divisional Forest Officer, Forest Division (General). Dindori district Dindori shall dwell upon the objection/claim putforth by the petitioner and decide the same within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his representative.

The petition is disposed of finally in above terMs.C.c. as per rules.

(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE Vivek Tripathi

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2013 Same Parties Ali Hasan vs The State of Madhya Pradesh Same Subject Education