1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 160 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2110 OF 2007 1. Kesharsing S/o Nandasing Jahagirdar and others .. Applicants Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri P. G. Godhamgaonkar, Advocate for the Applicants. Shri S. K. Tambe, A.G.P. for the Respondent No. 1 to 4. Shri V. P. Raje, Advocate h/f Shri C. R. Deshpande, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 6 to 14. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 12TH OCTOBER, 2009. ORAL ORDER [Per B. R. Gavai, J. ] : 1. Heard Shri Godhamgaonkar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants. Shri Godhamgaonkar submits that, in view of Section 17 of the Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, (Maharashtra Act No. 29 of 1975), the award made by the Collector under Section 9 and award passed by the Collection under Section 11 and 12 is subject to an appeal to the Tribunal or order of State 2 Government under Section 18 and the decision by the Tribunal on an appeal shall be final and conclusive and shall not be questioned in any suit or proceeding in any Court. He submits that, in view of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Dhulabai Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in AIR 1969 Supreme Court 78, the jurisdiction of Civil Court would be ousted. 2. In so far as the provisions of the said Act are concerned, the provisions of Section 11 concerns the deduction of amount of encumbrances from the amount payable to owner and Section 12 concerns to payment of amount for extinguishment of rights of other persons. It could thus clearly be seen that the decision regarding ownership is not a matter which can be decided by the Collector under Section 11 and 12 of the said Act. In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of review applicants, that the suits which are pending are without jurisdiction. At the cost of repetition we find that, issue regarding ownership is beyond the scope of Section 11 and 12 of the Said Act. 3. In that view of the matter, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record to invoke the review jurisdiction. The review application is therefore, dismissed. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ B. R. GAVAI, J.] bsb/Oct. 09