(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 2110 OF 2007 1. Kesarsing s/o. Nandasing Jahagirdar (Padvi), Age : 50 years, Occupation : Service. 2. Jaidevsing s/o. Nandasing, Age : 43 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 3. Smt. Vijaybai Kamalsing Vasave, Age : 53 years, Occupation : Household. 4. Smt. Anusayabai Jaipatsingh Vasave, Age : 46 years, Occupation : Household. 5. Smt. Phaimabai d/o. Nandasing Padvi, Age : 48 years, Occupation : Household. All R/o. Bhagdari, Taluka : Akkalkuwa, District : Nandurbar (Old Dhulia). .. Petitioners. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra (through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai). (2) 2. The Collector, Nandurbar. 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Taloda, District : Nandurbar. 4. The Divisional Forest Officer, Mewasi Division, Taloda, District : Nandurbar. 5. Prathwising s/o. Udaysing Padavi, Age : 44 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 6. Bhagatsing s/o. Mansing Padavi, Age : 70 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 7. Smt. Kamaladevi w/o. Pratapsingh Padavi, Age : 66 years, Occupation : Household. 8. Dilipsing s/o. Pratapsing Padavi, Age : 46 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 9. Laxmansing s/o. Pratapsing Padavi, Age : 44 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 10. Mahendrasing s/o. Pratapsing Padavi, Age : 40 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 11. Kunvarsing s/o. Pratapsing Padavi, Age : 38 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 12. Jagdishsing s/o. Pratapsing Padavi, Age : 35 years, Occupation : Agriculture. (3) 13. Pradeepsingh s/o. Pratapsing Padavi, Age : 33 years, Occupation : Agriculture. 14. Smt. Sarita d/o. Pratapsingh Padavi, Age : 30 years, Occupation : Household. 15. Dinesh s/o. Pratapsingh Padavi, Age : 28 years, Occupation : Agriculture. All R/o. Akkalkuwa, Taluka : Akkalkuwa, District : Nandurbar (Old Dhulia). .. Respondents. .......................... Mr. P.G. Godhamgaonkar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. S.K. Tambe, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1 to 3. Mr. C.R. Deshpande, Advocate, for respondent nos. 6 to 15. Respondent no.5 served (Absent). .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 7TH SEPTEMBER 2009. (4) COURT'S ORDER (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioners are seeking a writ of mandamus, order or direction for holding that the respondent nos.5 to 14 are not entitled for the payment of amount as owners of Private Forests of Bhagdari Jahagir and the petitioners alone are entitled for said payment and the respondent nos.1 to 4 be directed for making such payment to the petitioners. 2. Mr. P.G. Godhamgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, relying on Section 7 of the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975, and certain documents annexed to the petition, submits that right from 1926, one Meherban Ramsing Allarkha Padvi has been shown as owner of the forest, in question, and the petitioners are his legal heirs. 3. Perusal of Section 7 of the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975, would reveal that the owner of private forest, which vests in the State Government, is entitled to payment of compensation from the Collector. 4. The question, as to who is owner of the land, in question, in view of specific dispute raised by the respondent nos.5 to 15 herein, cannot be gone into in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Unless evidence is led, perused and scrutinized by the competent civil court, declaration as to who is owner of the said forest, cannot be made. We are afraid, as to whether such a detail enquiry would be permissible under extraordinary (5) jurisdiction of this court. 5. In any case, we have noticed that the Civil Suits, being Regular Civil Suit Nos. 49/2004, 50/2004 and 60/2004, filed by various persons who also claim to be owners of the forest, in question, are pending before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shahada. 6. Mr. C.R. Deshpande, learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos.5 to 15, makes a statement that there is already an order of injunction, granted by the learned Civil Judge, restraining the Collector from distributing the compensation. In that view of the matter, we find that the interest of the parties is sufficiently safeguarded as the distribution of the compensation would be subject to the decision of the said Civil Suits. 7. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the present petition. 8. The petition is, therefore, disposed of. If the petitioners so feel, they would be at liberty to get their rights adjudicated before competent Civil Court. ( N.D. DESHPANDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp2110