Court cites greed, environmental depletion while releasing seized Kashmir willow

On December 12, 2023, a truck loaded with wood clefts that were suspected to be of willow wood was detained by police at the Lakhanpur toll plaza at around 6 am and was then handed over to the forest officials of the Anti-Polythene Check Post, Lakhanpur. When the vehicle was physically checked by the forest officials in the presence of its driver, 6,150 clefts of willow wood were found, which were owned by a sports goods manufacturing business based in Pulwama and were being sent to Meerut, Uttar Pradesh.

Justice MA Chowdhary observed that protection of forests against depredation was a “constitutionally” mandated goal.

It came on record that though a no-objection certificate had been generated for 7,000 clefts of populus wood, the e-way bill was for willow clefts, and the driver was also unable to produce the relevant documents that were required to export the wood outside the union territory of Jammu and Kashmir. Consequently, the willow clefts and the truck were seized.

Eventually, on December 12, 2023, a forest office report was registered under the Jammu and Kashmir willow (Prohibition on Export and Movement) Act and the Indian Forest Act. After informing the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Kathua, the authorised officer started the confiscation proceedings, and on January 31, 2024, the willow wood clefts and the truck were confiscated by him.

Aggrieved by the confiscation, a plea was filed before the trial court, where the judge directed the authorised officer to hear the parties again. On October 14, 2024, the authorised officer, after hearing the parties again, ordered confiscation of the wood and the truck. The business and the transport company then filed two separate appeals before the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, Jammu and Kashmir, who, by its order of June 28, 2025, upheld the confiscation order of the authorised officer.

Illegal confiscation

After evaluating the relevant laws, the high court noted that the confiscation could only be done by the authorised officer after the accused has been convicted. The high court stated that if confiscation was done before trial, then, “confiscation may prejudicially affect the property and its owner,” and without being proved guilty, a person would be deprived of his property which he might have been using for his trade, profession or occupation.

The high court concluded that in the cases where the seized forest produce was government property, the confiscation could be ordered before completion of trial, but such a step was not “legally available” if it was the case of private property. Hence, the high court held that since the willow clefts were private property, and there was neither registration of a criminal case nor conviction of the offenders, the confiscation order of the wood and the truck was illegal.

Accordingly, the confiscation orders passed by the authorised officer and affirmed by the higher authority were set aside. The high court also ordered the willow clefts and the truck to be released to their owners.

The high court also observed that in absence of any procedure to deal with the seized willow, a forest produce, the confiscation proceedings could not be carried out by any of the authorities concerned and “if the government is serious about enforcing the provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir willow (Prohibition of Export and Movement) Act, 2000, keeping in view its aims and objectives, it should rise to the occasion and issue a Notification/Standing Order to prescribe the manner/procedure to be adopted to deal with seized property.”

‘No criminal case registered’

Advocates Jagpaul Singh and Nikhil Sharma, appearing for the sports goods manufacturing business, argued that no criminal case was registered by the police or the forest department and that under the Indian Forest Act, confiscation could be ordered only upon conviction of the accused. The counsel further submitted that the wood was seized within the state; therefore, there was no export of the willow clefts.

Senior Advocate K Nirmal Kotwal, along with advocates Savesh Kotwal and Pawan Dev Singh appearing for the transport company, submitted that they did not know that the consignment they were transporting was banned and that they had taken the work in good faith.

Deputy Advocate General Meenakshi Slathia, appearing for the authorities, argued that no procedural error had been committed by any of the authorities concerned and that the order of confiscation of the wood and the truck was completely legal. The counsel also submitted that the criminal proceedings and confiscation proceedings were independent and parallel to each other and confiscation was not dependent on registration, prosecution or conviction in a criminal case.