1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4478 OF 2009 Krishnat Dnyanu Wapilkar & ors ..Petitioners V/s. The Range Forest Officer & ors ..Respondents Mr.N.J.Patil, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr.V.A.Sonpal, Assistant Government Pleader, for the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4  State CORAM : R.M.SAVANT, J. DATE : 10TH JULY, 2009 P.C. 1. Rule with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the Order dated 16th February, 2009, passed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune, in RTS Revision Application No.752 of 2003. 2 3. Such of the facts which are necessary to be cited are stated thus :- The petitioners are the owners of the property being Gat No.10 Hissa Nos.A and B (Old R.S.No.53) totally admeasuring 12 Hectares, 74 Ares situated at village Senawade, Taluka Gaganbawada, District Kolhapur. The said property, on coming into force of the Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975 acquired under the provisions of the said Act. The Sub-Divisional Officer concerned handed over the possession of the said property to the Forest Department. It appears that the petitioners filed an application for restoration under the provisions of the said Act. By an Order dated 11th June, 1976, the Government restored about 3 Hectares and 34 Ares to the possession of the petitioners and accordingly, Diary Number 21 has been made and the said Diary Number 21 has been certified on 6th June, 1985. 4. It appears that the Consolidation Scheme 3 came to be implemented in the village Senawade, Taluka Gaganbawada, District Kolhapur wherein the land was situated, as a consequence of which the remaining land was also restored to the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that the entire property to the extent of 12 Hectares 74 Ares was returned to the petitioners and according to the petitioners a Certificate under Section 24(1) of the Consolidation Act, 1947 has been registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Karvir on 23rd February, 1988 and Index No.2 has also been issued in respect of the said land. Being aggrieved by the Mutation Entry and issuance of the Index No.2 in favour of the petitioners, respondent No.1 filed RTS Appeal No.77 of 2001 before the Assistant Collector, Radhanagari Division, Kolhapur. The respondent No.1 prayed for making entry in the name of the Forest Department in the Revenue record by setting aside the Orders passed in favour of the petitioners. The Assistant Collector by Order dated 28th February, 2002, after 4 hearing the parties allowed the appeal and directed that the Mutation Entry No.21 be amended so as to include 3 Hectares, 3 Ares in the name of the petitioners and in respect of the rest of the land, name of the Forest Department should be entered. The petitioners aggrieved by the Order dated 28th February, 2002 of the Assistant Collector preferred RTS/IInd Appeal No.88 of 2002 before the Additional Collector, Kolhapur. The Additional Collector, Kolhapur by his Order dated 8th October, 2002, partly allowed the said appeal by setting aside the Order dated 28th February, 2002 and remanded the matter back to the Assistant Collector/Sub Divisional Officer, Radhanagari Division, Kolhapur for a fresh hearing. On remand, the said RTS Appeal No.77 of 2001 which was filed by the respondent No.1 was renumbered as RTS Revision Appeal No.5 of 2003. However, the character of the parties was wrongly shown. Though, the petitioners were the 5 respondents in the First Appeal filed by the respondent No.1, they were wrongly shown as appellants and the respondent No.1 herein and other officials were wrongly shown as the respondents to the said appeal. The said appeal came to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction as according to the Assistant Collector, considering the provisions of the Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975, the Revenue Authorities under the Land Revenue Code had no jurisdiction. Against the said Order dated 4th September, 2003, the petitioners herein filed RTS Second Appeal No.298 of 2003 before the Additional Collector, Kolhapur which was dismissed by the Additional Collector, Kolhapur by his Order dated 16th October, 2003, as not tenable. The petitioners, thereafter, carried the matter by way of revision being RTS Revision Application No. 752 of 2003, before the Additional Commissioner, Pune. The said Revision Application came to be dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune by Order dated 16th February, 2009. As indicated 6 above, this is the Order which is impugned in the present Writ Petition. 5. As mentioned herein above, the character of the parties was shown wrongly by the Assistant Collector, on remand of the matter to him by the Additional Collector though, the said First Appeal was filed by the Range Forest Officer, the petitioners were shown as the appellants and the Range Forest Officer and the other officers were shown as the respondents. The said fact in my view, goes to the root of the matter as the said mistake has been continued right upto the Additional Commissioner as ultimately, if the appeal was not found to be tenable, the same would be the First Appeal filed by the Range Forest Officer before the Assistant Collector and not the petitioners. In that view of the matter, since the proceedings before the various Authorities are vitiated on the said ground, though the petitioner has impugned only the Order dated 16th February, 7 2009, since the said impugned Order is the successor Order to the Order passed in the First Appeal filed by the respondent No.1. All the Orders namely Order passed by the Assistant Collector, Radhanagari Division, Kolhapur dated 4th September, 2003, thereafter, the Order passed by the Additional Collector, Kolhapur dated 16th October, 2003 and thereafter, the impugned Order dated 16th February, 2009, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune would have to be set aside and is accordingly set aside and the matter remanded back to the Assistant Collector for de-novo consideration of the First Appeal filed by the respondent No.1 being RTS Revision Appeal No.5 of 2003 by showing the parties in their proper character namely the respondent No.1 and other respondents as the appellants and the petitioners as the respondents. While setting aside the Order and remanding the matter back this Court has not expressed any opinion as regards tenability of the said appeal filed by the respondent No.1. It is 8 for the Assistant Collector to consider the said appeal on its own merits and in accordance with law. On remand, the said appeal to be decided by the Assistant Collector within a period of four months of the communication of this Order to him. All the contentions of the parties are kept open. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with parties to bear their respective costs. ( R.M.SAVANT. J.)