1 C.R.A. NO.60/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.60 OF 2010 Conservator of Forest, Aurangabad ... PETITIONER VERSUS Daulat s/o Tukaram Tambare & anr. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri M.B. Bharaswadkar, Advocate for petitioner Shri U.N. Shete, Advocate for respondent No.1. Shri S.V. Kurundkar, A.G.P. for respondent No.2. ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 20th December, 2010 PER COURT : 1. Heard. The respondent moved the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Aurangabad by Regular Civil Suit No. 938/2009 simplicitor with a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from obstructing and interfering in the possession of plaintiff over land admeasuring 80 ft. x 60 ft. situated at Survey No.2, Khultabad, District Aurangabad. No declaration apparently was sought. The learned Court of first instance recorded that it was a forest land and did not approve the contention of the respondent, suit was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Said order was challenged before learned District Judge-4, at Aurangabad in Regular Civil Appeal No. 2 C.R.A. NO.60/2010 333/2009. The respondent in the said proceeding (State) did not appear. However, Forest Officer appeared through counsel. After hearing both the learned counsel, the learned District Judge answered the issue in the affirmative, informing that Civil Court has jurisdiction to try the suit. This order is questioned in the present proceedings. During the course of submission, it is informed that the revision applicant, the Conservator of Forest, Aurangabad has received the possession of the property in question. 2. At this stage of the matter, even looking to the frame of the suit, the respondent has several difficulties to face. However, the answer to entertaining the suit having been recorded by the learned District Judge in the legal frame, does not inure to call for any interference. This is more so, as the property where the disputed structure was erected by the respondent, is a big Survey number with 187 acreage, having a portion of 80 Ares to Municipal Council, Khultabad to be used for cremation ground. I agree to Mr. Bharaswadkar if the respondent asserts right through Municipal Council, it was imperative for him to have arrayed said Council. The defects in the proceedings by itself will not be a impediment to lodge the proceedings. The findings recorded by the learned District Judge and in tune with Section 11 of the Bombay Revenue Jurisdiction Act, which indeed does not create specific bar on 3 C.R.A. NO.60/2010 the Civil Court from entertaining the suit, does not call for any interference. Civil Revision Application lacks merits, dismissed. No costs. The observations are prima facie in nature. The observations of the learned District Judge in paragraph No.19, if contrary to the record, will have no legal effect on the proceedings. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE fmp/cra60.10