1 904 wp 2447.10.doc K IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2447 OF 2010 M/s Khorakiwala Foundation ..Petitioners. Vs. Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. S.U.Kamdar, Senior Advocate i/b Harish Joshi & Co.for petitioners. Mr. D.A.Nalawade, Government Pleader for respondent nos.2 to 4. Ms. Priti Purandare for respondent no.5/BMC. Mr. Rohan Rajadhyaksha, Bombay Environmental Action Group. CORAM : D.K.DESHMUKH, K.K.TATED, JJ. DATED : 18/02/2011. PC: 1 Petitioner challenges notification issued under section 29 of the Indian Forest Act declaring part of the land which is granted on lease to the petitioner as protected forest land. Perusal of the provisions of section 29 of the Indian Forest Act shows that in order that land can be declared as protected forest it must be either forest-land or waste-land and it must be owned by the Government. So far as the ownership of the Government is concerned, there is no dispute. 2 904 wp 2447.10.doc 2 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that this is not a forest land but it appears that it is an admitted position that there are mangroves on part of the land. 3 In our opinion, the very fact that there are mangroves on the land may make it a forest land. The second grievance of the petitioner is that the ground survey has not been made as required by the provisions of sub section 3 of section 29 of the Indian Forest Act. Perusal of the provisions of sub section 3 of section 29 shows that the ground survey is to be held to determine the nature of ownership and other rights in the land. In this case, so far as the land in question is concerned there appears to be no dispute that the owner of the land is the State Government and the Petitioner is a lessee of the land. 4 In our opinion, therefore, the Government has rightly contended that there was no need to carry out the ground survey in so far as the land in question is concerned. We find that there appear to be mangroves on part of the land and therefore, it has been declared as protected forest because there was also an order made by the Division Bench of this Court. 3 904 wp 2447.10.doc 5 The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner next submitted that as the right of the petitioner who is a government lessee to develop the land is affected by declaration of the land as a protected forest, he is entitled to hearing. As in the scheme of section 29 there is no hearing contemplated, in our opinion, the petitioner’s submission has no substance and hence the petition is rejected. (D.K.Deshmukh,J.) (K.K.Tated, J.)