High Court Refuses to Revisit Final Orders Granting Interim Custody of Seized Property Under Article 226

The respondent was granted a stone mining lease (1990–1993) near a forest area in District Raisen. In 1992, the Forest Department seized 1,441 stones, alleging illegal extraction from forest land.

While the respondent’s civil suit for the return of the stones was dismissed in default, she successfully moved the JMFC, Raisen, which ordered the Forest Department on 20.10.1993 to return 1,50,000 sq. ft. of flagstones. This order was upheld by the Sessions Court in 1994 and subsequently by the High Court in M.Cr.C. No. 4550/1994 on 29.09.2000, with a further direction that if the stones were destroyed or reduced in value, the State must pay their market value.

After a long delay, the respondent sought execution of these orders. In 2011, the CJM, Raisen, directed the respondent to produce certified copies of the prior orders or affidavits/certificates proving the destruction of records.

The State challenged this procedural direction and the underlying merits of the seizure via this writ petition.

1. Whether the findings of the Judicial Magistrate regarding the seizure and return of stones were perverse and liable to be quashed under Article 226

2. Whether the CJM’s order requiring certified copies or affidavits regarding destroyed records was legally sustainable

The Court primarily applied the principles governing the finality of judicial decisions and the scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Section 54 of the Forest Act, 1927, regarding the release of seized property.

The ruling relied on the doctrine of res judicata and judicial discipline, establishing that once a superior court (High Court) has affirmed an order and the matter has attained finality, it cannot be reopened for fresh adjudication on merit.

The Court analyzed the petitioner’s contention that the stones were never seized from the respondent’s mines and that the 1993 order was perverse.

The Court observed that the issue of the return of stones had already been litigated through multiple tiers: the JMFC (1993), the Sessions Court (1994), and twice before the High Court in M.Cr.C. No. 5812/1994 and M.Cr.C. No. 4550/1994. The Court reasoned that since the High Court had already delivered a final judgment on 29.09.2000—explicitly directing the return or payment of the stones—the controversy had reached "finality".

Regarding the impugned order of the CJM (2011), the Court found it to be a reasonable procedural direction. Requiring certified copies or affidavits to verify destroyed records was deemed a necessary administrative step to ensure implementation of the prior High Court order.

It further held that the CJM’s direction to submit certified copies or affidavits did not call for interference under Article 226. The petition was dismissed as being without merit. Under the previous order of 29.09.2000, the State remains obligated to return the stones or pay their current market value.