1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No.741 of 2011 [Saifuddin Malak Moulana Hasan Vs. State of Mah. & others] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr.Z.A. Haq, Adv., for the petitioner. Mrs. Anuradha Taywade, AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 4. ----- CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE : 22nd August, 2011. 1. Heard learned Adv. Shri Z.A. Haq for the petitioner and learned AGP Smt. Taywade for respondent nos. 1 to 4. 2. Looking to the nature of controversy, service on respondent no.5 for final disposal of the matter is dispensed with. 3. Shri Haq states that petitioner has applied for permission to cut trees in his land , and though land is nowhere recorded as “forest land”, under a mistaken impression, his application is not being decided. 4. According to learned counsel, the old document of Nistar reveals that total 13 lands from various Khasra numbers all admeasuring 43.83 acres were then declared as “forest lands.” He has invited our attention to certified copy of the document dated 27th May, 2 1955 maintained by Nistar Officer for this purpose. According to him, figure “13” appearing in this document is not a number of any land, but it is total of the various Khasra numbers mentioned above it, i.e., total 13 Khasra numbers. Overlooking this, the error occurred in the Gazette Notification published on 4th June, 1955 where this figure “13” has been reflected as survey number/Khasra number and, therefore, is being co-related with land in possession of present petitioner. 5. Shri Haq contends that after due verification of documents supplied by the petitioner, the Forest Office has accordingly pointed out to Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur, that error, but then Office of Divisional Commissioner has not taken any action since 9th October, 2009. He points out that though original of Gazette Notification is not available, its certified copy has been already submitted by the petitioner. 6. Learned AGP is supporting the communication sent by Divisional Commissioner on 9th October, 2009 to Conservator of Forests. She points out that unless and until original documents are verified, the alleged error in mentioning “13” as Khasra/Survey numbers cannot be accepted. 7. We find that the petitioner has moved appropriate application with necessary documents to a Competent Authority and that Competent Authority has, after due application of mind, 3 recommended the matter to Divisional Commissioner on 2nd June, 2008. The Conservator of Forests has informed Divisional Commissioner about these facts [error]and also recommended publication of appropriate corrigendum. In response to this, on 9th October, 2009, Divisional Commissioner has expressed inability to accede to the recommendation, and has demanded certain more documents and information. 8. Shri Haq has also invited our attention to provisions of Section 29 (1) of Indian Forests Act, 1927, as applicable in State of Maharashtra, to show that appropriate powers thereunder can be exercised by Divisional Commissioner, subject to general or special orders of the State Govt. 9. In this situation, we direct respondent no.4 to hear the petitioner on communication dated 2nd June, 2008 forwarded to him by the Office of Conservator of Forests, i.e., under Respondent No.2. Petitioner shall appear before Divisional Commissioner for such hearing on 5th September, 2011, and Respondent No.4 – Divisional Commissioner shall proceed to hear him on that day or some other day as per his convenience, but take appropriate final decision in this respect at the earliest, and in any case, by 15th October, 2011. 10. Petitioner is at liberty to produce necessary material/evidence before respondent no.4 during such hearing. 4 11. It is made clear that communication dated 9th October, 2009 is internal office communication between respondent no.4 and respondent no.1 and hence it is not necessary to quash or set aside it, however, it shows that matter has remained pending for last about two years without any further action. It is further made clear that said communication shall not come in the way of respondent no.4 while taking appropriate decision after extending the petitioner due opportunity of hearing. 12. With these directions and observations, petition is disposed of. No costs. Judge Judge |Hedau|