1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 3502 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 3502 OF 2011 *** 1. Petitioner/ Judgment debtor is challenging the orders of executing Court. T.I.L.R. appointed as Commissioner to demarcate land for handing over possession faced some difficulties and reported accordingly to Executing Court. The Executing Court has considered those difficulties and heard parties. Judge debtor came up with a case that there are old trees of Neem, Ziziphus, custard apple with age between 50 to 60 years and hence for removal of those trees permission of competent authority under section 3 of Maharashtra Felling of Trees (Regulation) Act, 1964 is necessary. 2. On the basis of material on record, trial Court has found that existence of such tress has not been established. It noted 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 3502 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. that report of Commissioner only reveal thick growth of shrubs and hence the readiness and willingness shown by decree holder to provide necessary assistance to the T.I.L.R. has been accepted. 3. Before this Court, only emphasis is upon absence of permission under section 3 of above mentioned 1964 Act. The finding of absence of such trees is not demonstrated to be as erroneous or perverse. Petition is, therefore, rejected. No costs. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:04/05/2011. ans/3502