1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3822 OF 2007 Shaildevi Bhadani and Ors. .... Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..... Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.3823 OF 2007 M/s.Unit Arsens Developers ..... Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.F.B.Paniwala i/by Mr.Y.R.Shah, for the petitioners. Mr.S.S.Bhende, AGP, for the State. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 15th March, 2010 P.C. 1. The petitioners are claiming ownership of certain land located at Panchpakhadi, District Thane, being Survey No.430 and 432. It is the case of the petitioners that as back as on 06th April, 1957, a notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 in respect of the land bearing Survey No.430 was issued to the petitioners to show cause as to why the said land should not be notified as a Private forest. The same was not followed by further notification in pursuance of the show cause notice as per the Forest Act. It the case of the petitioners that in the year 1959, 2 Collector Thane, granted sanction for non-agricultural use of the said lands. Thereafter, in the first town planning scheme of Thane, the entire property of the petitioners were shown as ‘residential zone’. Revised town planning scheme also showed the same. It is the case of the petitioners that in May 2006, revenue entry No.4199 was made by respondent No.4 without notice to the petitioners. By the said revenue entry, lands in question were shown as private forest land. It is the case of the petitioners that the said entry was made only on the basis of the lapsed show cause notices which were issued in the year 1957. The petitioners therefore, prayed that appropriate writ directions may be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, setting aside the revenue entry at Exh.F. It is also prayed that the show cause notice issued by respondent No.3 may also be set aside. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in fact a group of petitions filed on an identical point were disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court on 24-03-2008, by which all the bunch of the petitions were dismissed by the Court. It is pointed out that against the decision of the Division Bench, Special Leave Petition is pending before the Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the point in question is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench and no final judgment is given by the Supreme Court, these 3 writ petitions may be disposed of, so that the petitioners can join the other group of pending petitions before the Supreme Court. Since the point in issue is squarely covered, as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in our view, in view of the decision of the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.1957 of 2006 dated 24-03-2008, both these writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs. ( R.G.KETKAR, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)