1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 630 OF 2010 ... Santacruz Contractors and Builders Pvt.Ltd. ...Petitioner v/s State of Maharashtra and ors. ... Respondents ... Dr.V.V.Tulzapurkar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.P.K.Samdhani, Sr.Advocate i/b M/s.Wadia Gandhi & Co. for the Petitioners. Mr.S.N.Patil, A.G.P., for the State. ... CORAM: D.K. DESHMUKH & A.R.JOSHI,JJ DATED: 4th March,2010 P.C.:- 1. Rule. Returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2. By this petition the Petitioners are 2 challenging the order dated 14-7-2009. By that order the Petitioners are restrained from carrying on any construction on the land being Gut Nos.57/1 and 57/2 of village Manapada, Taluka & District: Thane. In the order it is stated that though the land was restored to the owners under Section 24(2) under the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 the land continued to be forest land and therefore under the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, the land cannot be used by the Petitioners for non-forest purpose without obtaining prior permission of the Central Government. 3. The short grievance against the order made by the Petitioners is that this order is made in breach of the principles of natural justice. It is submitted that a notice was 3 issued to the Petitioners on 27-1-2009, informing the Petitioners that the land on which the Petitioners are raising the construction is the forest land as per the Government record and therefore, the Petitioners cannot carry on construction without prior permission of the Central Government as required by the provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and therefore the Petitioners were asked to stop the construction within a period of seven days from the receipt of the notice. This was not a show cause notice. The Petitioners were not called upon to show cause. The Petitioners, however, sent their reply to the notice dated 27-1-2009 stating therein that the construction of the land is being carried on after getting a building plan duly approved. It was also claimed that the Government records do not show that this is a forest 4 land. A reminder was again sent on 8th July 2009. In the reply, the Petitioners requested the Range Forest Officer if a personal hearing is given to the Petitioners, the Petitioners will appear before the authorities and also produce relevant documents. Admittedly, no such thing was done and the order dated 14-7-2009 was made, where without recording any reason a declaration is made that the land is a forest land within the meaning of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. 4. In our opinion, as the building construction was being done by the Petitioners pursuant to the sanctioned building plan and as perusal of the Government records also indicates that the land is not recorded as forest land in those records, minimum that should have been done 5 by the authority was to issue a show cause notice to the Petitioners to consider the material placed by them on record and then record a finding whether this is a forest land or not, with reasons. As this has not been done, in our opinion the order impugned in the petition will have to be set aside. 5. It is also the contention of the Petitioners that the Range Forest Officer who has made the order also does not have authority to determine the status of the land. But we do not propose to go into that aspect of the matter in this petition. 6. In our opinion, as the order is clearly made in breach of the principles of natural justice, it will have to be set aside. Petition is, therefore, allowed. The Order dated 14-7-2009 impugned in the 6 petition is set aside. Rule made absolute. No order as to costs. The Petitioners shall be at liberty to apply for necessary correction in the records pursuant to this order. ( D.K. DESHMUKH,J.) ( A.R.JOSHI,J)