1 wp-8024-11.sxw dgm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8024 OF 2011 Neelaben Pravinchandra Parekh and ors. .... Petitioners vs State of Maharashtra and anr. .... Respondents Mr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pradeep Thorat with Mr.Ranjit Shetty and Mr. Luckyraj Indorkar, Advocates i/by M/s.Hariani & Co. for the petitioners. Mr. N.P. Deshpande, AGP for respondents/State. CORAM: D. K. DESHMUKH & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATE : November 15, 2011 P.C.: Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. 2 By consent, the Petition is disposed of in the following terms : (i) The case of the Petitioner is that his resort in relation to which notice dated 26.09.2011 has been issued by Range Forest Officer, Yeoor is part of 24 acres 32 gunthas of land from Survey 2 wp-8024-11.sxw No.59 Gat No.59/1(part) to which the order dated 27 December 2004 passed by the Deputy Collector (Private Forest), Thane Division, Thane relates and, therefore, according to the Petitioner, he is entitled to use the land for non-forest purpose. It is common ground that this order is challenged by the State Government in Appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai and in that Appeal, the Divisional Commissioner had made an interim order directing the parties to maintain status-quo. It is also common ground that now that Appeal has been transferred to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. (ii)The case of the Petitioner is that in view of the Order dated 27 December 2004 passed by the Deputy Collector and the interim order passed in the Appeal by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division dated 25.07.2006, he is entitled to use the land for non-forest purpose. The case of the State Government before us is that the land on which the Petitioner is having resort is not covered either by the order dated 27 December 2004 or the interim order in the Appeal passed by the Divisional Commissioner dated 25.07.2006. In support of their case, they have also produced a map. 3 wp-8024-11.sxw (iii)The parties are agreed that this question as to whether the land on which the Petitioner is running his resort is part of the land to which the order dated 27 December 2004 passed by the Deputy Collector relates or the Petitioner is running his resort on the land which is a forest land can also be decided by the Appellate Tribunal namely, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. (iv)In this view of the matter, therefore, it is directed that while deciding the Appeal which is filed by the State Government against the order of the Deputy Collector to which admittedly the present petitioner is a party, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal shall also decide the question whether the Petitioner had established his resort on forest land or it is on land which is permitted to be used for non-forest purpose. (v)During the pendency of the Appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, the notice dated 23.09.2011 issued by Range Forest Officer and the notice dated 26.09.2011 shall remain stayed. (vi)The stay shall continue to operate in case the finding in the Appeal is adverse to the interest of the Petitioner for a period of four weeks after the order is passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. 4 wp-8024-11.sxw 3 The Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (D. K. DESHMUKH,J.)