SSK 1 cp. 314.08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 314 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.2381 OF 1982 Rameshchandra P. Daftary & Ors. ....Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Karl Shroff a/w Ms.Khyati Gevana i/b. M/s. Dhru & Co. for the petitioners. Mr. A. I.Patel, AGP for the State. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 1st APRIL, 2011. P.C.: 1. The petitioners alleges that the respondents have committed willful disobedience of the Order dated 25th September, 1990 passed in Writ Petition No. 2381 of 1982. By the said order, the Division Bench struck down the Notice/Communication dated 21st October, 1975, issued by the Range Forest Officer, Panvel. It is the contention of the petitioners that the respondents in violation of this order, certified mutation entry, extract of which is annexed at Exhibit J-1 under which the name of the Government of Maharashtra, Forest Department, Panvel was shown in the column of name of holder in respect of property in question. SSK 2 cp. 314.08 2. The submission of the petitioner has no merit. The respondent nos. 1 to 6 filed Civil Application No. 3125 of 1997 to review the Order dated 25th September, 1990 passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 2381 of 1982. This application was disposed of by another Division Bench on 20th July, 2004. The said order runs as follows : “ By this review application the Government of Maharashtra seeks review of the order passed by this Court on 25th September, 1990 in Writ Petition No.2381 of 1982. The petition was decided and rule was made absolute in following terms “ “We are therefore driven to accept the uncontroverted claim of the petitioners and hold that the action of the Range Forest Officer is illegal. “Accordingly, rule is made absolute and the communication dated October, 21, 1975 forwarded by the Range Forest Officer, Panvel to the petitioners and copy of which is annexed as Exhibit “E” to the petition is struck down”. Exhibit “E” the communication dated 21.10.1975 is a notice issued by the State calling upon the noticee in several notices to provide certain documents to the State for adjudication was issued as to whether it is the forest land or not. Such notice can always be issued afresh. Nothing prohibits SSK 3 cp. 314.08 State from doing so. There is, therefore, no reason why we should review the order passed on 25th September, 1990. With these observations Review petition is disposed of.” Perusal of the above order makes it clear the the respondents- authorities were always at liberty to issue notice afresh for the purpose of declaration of the land in question as a forest land. The respondents- authorities thereafter in pursuance of the notice dated 30th July, 2004 declared petitioners’ land to be deemed forest and intimation was issued accordingly, in pursuance of which, mutation entry in question was certified. The petitioners were always at liberty to challenge this notice or mutation entry before the appropriate forum but they have not resorted to this remedy. The contempt petition is without any substance and same is, therefore, dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)