1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.4390 of 2010 (Shri Gorakshan Sanstha, Arvi Vs. The Collector, Wardha & others) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri D.L.Dharmakari, counsel for petitioner. Shri T.D.Khade, AGP for respondent no.1. Shri S.R.Deshpande, counsel for respondent no.2 & 3. Coram : R.K.Deshpande, J. Dated : 5 th April, 2011 1). This writ petition challenges the order dated 20.1.2010 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur in Revenue Appeal No.MPFA/1/2005. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner, challenging the order dated 17.1.2005 passed by the Collector in Case No.A/Jamin/K/358/2005. By this order dated 17.1.2005, the Collector had cancelled the earlier order dated 23.1.2001, in which it was declared, that the land in question was an 2 agricultural land and not the forest land. 2). The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur has recorded the findings that in view of the Judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court on 10.10.2001 in Writ Petition No.2980 of 2001, the Collector was competent to reopen the proceeding and to pass an order dated 17.1.2005. It has recorded the finding, that the provisions of the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 (''Said Act” for short) and so also the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, both are squarely applicable to the case of the petitioner. 3). Shri D.L.Dharmakari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 17.1.2005 passed by the Collector and the order dated 21.1.2010 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, on the ground, that the case of the petitioner is covered by the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act and the order dated 23.1.2001 passed by the Collector holding that, the land in question was agricultural land, could not have been reopened on the basis of the order passed by the Division Bench 3 on 10.10.2001 in Writ Petition No.2980 of 2001. He submits that, unless applicability of said Act is determined, no order could have been passed by the Collector on 17.1.2005. According to him, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur has also not referred the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the said Act, and has mechanically, without application of mind, recorded the finding, that the matter is covered by the judgment of Division Bench of this Court. 4). Notice in this matter was issued on 21.9.2010. The learned AGP appearing for respondent no.1 and Shri S.R.Deshpande, learned counsel, appearing for respondent no.2 & 3. 5). The learned counsels for the parties submitted that the matter can be decided finally at this stage. Hence, Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties. 6). Perusal of the order impugned in this petition shows that there is total non application of mind. The authorities below could not have acted on the basis of the Division Bench of this Court, 4 without deciding applicability of the said Act. The interim order passed by the Division Bench on 10.10.2001 applies to the certificates issued under Section 6 of the Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975 without obtaining permission of the Central Government under section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The question is whether the petitioner was issued certificates under section 6 of the said Act and whether the permission of the Central Government under section 2(a) of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, required to be obtained, has not been considered by the authorities below. Hence, the order impugned cannot be sustained and the matter will have to be sent back to the Collector, Wardha for the decision afresh in the light of the observations above. 7). The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 20.1.2010 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur and the order dated 17.1.2005 passed by the Collector, Wardha, are quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Collector, Wardha 5 for determination of the questions in the lights of the above observations . No order as to costs. JUDGE Bhushan