1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 142 OF 2004 Varsha Laxmanrao Deshpande ... Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Uday Warunjikar for the Petitioner Mr. S.S. Pakale, R.C. Master and Mr. Y.R. Mishra for Respondent No. 1 Mrs. J.S. Pawar, A.G.P., for Respondents No. 2 to 4 Mr. Vaibhav Krishnan i/by Mrs. Anupama S. Shah for Respondent No. 5. WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1966 OF 2004 Balaji Narsing Pawar ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr. Nitin Pradhan with Ms. S.D. Khot for the Petitioner Mr. S.S. Pakale for the Union of India WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1862 OF 2004 2 Arun Handa ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. Nitin Pradhan with Ms. S.D. Khot for the Petitioner Mr. S.S. Pakale for the Union of India CORAM: B ILAL NAZKI and S.A. BOBDE, JJ. DATE: JANUARY 30, 2008. P.C.:- These petitions were primarily filed with the prayer that the Collector of Satara be directed to personally visit the site under the tomb and surrounding areas, carry out measurements and submit his report about the actual situation, as the petitioners contended that in the name of the original tomb of Afzal Khan, certain persons were encroaching upon land and using it for their personal benefits. 2. Various orders have been passed by the Court at various stages, and counters were also filed. Certain persons were also appointed for giving hearing to the parties and pass appropriate orders; and ultimately, it was brought to the notice of the Court that allegedly there were certain unauthorised constructions; there were some encroachments; and certain lands belong to the State and a portion of 3 the land belongs to the forest. This Court, by an elaborate order dated 13th September, 2007, observed in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the order as under:- “3. This Court has already permitted the parties to file their exceptions which are placed on record. On taking overall view of the matter, it will be in larger public interest if the respondent-State through its instrumentalities remove all unauthorised constructions from this disputed site by following due process of law. 4. There is no dispute over the fact that the site is situated within the protected forest and if that is so, the State should not permit use of the site for non-forest purposes as the same is prohibited under the Forests Conservation Act, 1980, without obtaining permission from the competent authority.” 3. We feel that by this order the petitions could ultimately be disposed of because it would be State authorities who will have to determine whether there are encroachments and constructions on various lands. These are disputed questions of fact, as nobody out of the respondents accepts that he is an encroacher. 4. We, therefore, dispose of these petitions in terms of paragraphs 3 and 4 of the order passed by this Court on 13th September, 2007, and direct the concerned authorities to complete the process within a period of 6 months from today. 4 BILAL NAZKI, J. S.A. BOBDE, J.