1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 332 OF 2008 1. Inacio Rodrigues, House No. 34, Dando, Sanguem Goa, 2. Communidade of Bhati (Astragar ) by its present Attorney Shri Naguesh Prabhu Dessai, r/o Rivona, Sanguem Goa. ... Petitioners. V e r s u s 1. Revenue Officer and Collector appointed under Wildlife Preservation Act, 1972, Ponda Goa. 2. The Chief Wild Life Warden, Panaji Goa. 3. The Dy. Conservator of Forests, South Goa Division, Margao Goa. ... Respondents. Mr. A. F. Diniz, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S. Rivonkar, Advocate for the Respondents. Coram :- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date :- 2 nd JULY, 2009. 2 ORAL ORDER : Heard learned Counsel on behalf of both the parties. It appears that after a declaration under Section 18 of the Wild Life ( Protection ) Act, 1972 was made in respect of Netravali Wild Life Sanctuary, admeasuring an area of 154.82 square kms the petitioners herein by their application dated 24.4.2007, jointly made a claim to an area of 40.43 hactars along with certain documents and on the basis of same the Collector who was entrusted with the settlement of claims by order dated 24.9.2007 dismissed the claim of the petitioners. 2. Section 22 of the said Act provides :- “The Collector shall, after service of the prescribed notice upon the claimant, expeditiously inquire into - (a) the claim preferred before him under clause (b) of Section 21; and (b) the existence of any right mentioned in Section 19 and not claimed under clause (b) of Section 21. So far as the same may be 3 ascertainable from the records of the State Government and the evidence of any person acquainted with the same”. 3. The petitioners grievance is that no further opportunity was given to the petitioners to lead evidence in support of the claim made by the claimants. It is also grievance that Government Gazette dated 15.12.1883 has also not been considered by the Collector. Be that as it may, if the Collector was to inquire into the claim made by the petitioners then obviously an adequate opportunity ought to have been given to them to lead their evidence as desired by them in support of the claim, which obviously has not been done by the Collector. The document produced has also not been considered. In the circumstances, therefore, the order dated 24.9.2007 is hereby set aside and the case is remanded to the Collector to complete the inquiry after giving reasonable opportunity to the petitioners herein to lead evidence as desired by them in support of their claim. The petitioners have no objection if the Forest Department is also given an opportunity to lead evidence in support of their claim. 4 4. In view of the above, the impugned judgment is set aside and Revenue Officer and Collector appointed under Wild Life ( Protection ) Act, 1972 is hereby directed to proceed with an inquiry and complete the same as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of six months. N. A. BRITTO, J. at*