1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. SECOND APPEAL NO.22 OF 2010. Sitaram Sajan Pawar and others ... Appellants. Versus Ambu Nahanu Naik and others ... Respondents. ... Mr.P.P.More, Asstt.Govt.Pleader for the Appellants. Mr.A.G.Magare, advocate for the Respondent Nos. 3,5 to 7. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 13.09.2010. PER COURT 1. The State has filed this appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. 2 2. The present Respondents had instituted a Civil suit seeking injunction against the Respondent State from evicting them from the suit land which admittedly is Forest land. Both the Courts have decreed the suit. The injunction which is clamped against the present appellants is not a blanket injunction. The injunction is in following terms : "The defendants are hereby perpetually restrained from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit lands without following due process of law." 3. Mr.More, learned Asstt.Govt. Pleader submits that the land being a Forest land, the plaintiffs do not have any right to occupy the said land, interalia, would not have any right to seek injunction. 4. Both the Courts have observed that the plaintiffs are occupying the part of the suit 3 premises. The plaintiffs who are in possession can not be dispossessed without due process of law. In light of the same, no error can be found in the judgments of the Courts below as the appellants are free to take recourse to the procedure as established by law to take possession if so advised. The Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. 5. In view of dismissal of Second Appeal, the Civil Application does not survive and is accordingly disposed of. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/sa22.10