1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.141 OF 2007 Milind Ramakant Ekbote .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Ms.Shubhada Khot for the petitioner Ms.J.S.Pawar, Addl.G.P. for respondent nos.1 CORAM : J.N.PATEL CORAM : J.N.PATEL CORAM : J.N.PATEL & & & S.J.KATHAWALA, JJ. S.J.KATHAWALA, JJ. S.J.KATHAWALA, JJ. DATED : 15TH OCTOBER, 2008 DATED : 15TH OCTOBER, 2008 DATED : 15TH OCTOBER, 2008 P.C.: 1. In view of the fact that this court has already disposed of Writ Petition No.142 of 2004 by judgment and order dated 30.01.2008 which has also disposed of other connected matters i.e. Criminal Writ Petition No.1966 of 2004 and Criminal Writ Petition No.1862 of 2004, it is not necessary for us to further entertain the Writ Petition which is based on subsequent development on the subject land relating to unauthorised construction. 2 2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the proposal to regularise unauthorised construction is forwarded to the State Government so as to avoid implementation of the orders of this court. 3. The learned Addl.G.P. points out to this court that the issue has been dealt by the bench which has disposed of Writ Petition No.142 of 2004. We are quite sure that the State would refrain from regularising any construction on the subject land for two reasons. Firstly, this court has directed the authorities to remove encroachment and unauthorised construction and secondly, the land in question is forest land and under the Forest (Conservation) Act, forest land cannot be used for non forest purpose unless permission of specially constituted committee under the Ministry of Environment and Forest is obtained as held by the Supreme Court in the case of T.N.Godavarman T.N.Godavarman T.N.Godavarman Thirumulpad vs. Union of India and Ors. reported Thirumulpad vs. Union of India and Ors. reported Thirumulpad vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in 2008 (6) Scale 499. in 2008 (6) Scale 499. in 2008 (6) Scale 499. 3 4. Petition is disposed of. 5. After we dictated the order, the learned Addl G.P. states that she may be granted time to file affidavit in reply in the matter. In our view, as the State has failed to file any affidavit in reply though the petition is pending since long and an identical petition has been disposed of after considering the affidavit in reply filed by the State in Public Interest Litigation No.142 of 2004, we do not think any opportunity should be given to the State in the matter. In case of any contingency, the State can always approach this court and seek appropriate direction / order by moving the court through interim application. ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( J.N. PATEL, J ) ( S.J. KATHAWALA, J ) ( S.J. KATHAWALA, J ) ( S.J. KATHAWALA, J )