1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3148 OF 2010 Jayendra Gopalrao Sardesai ........Petitioner versus Addl. Commissioner, Pune Dn. Pune & ors........Respondent. Mr. S.S. Patwardhan adv. for the Petitioner. Mr. S.D. Ragrikar AGP for the Respondent. CORAM: B. R. GAVAI,J. DATED : 14th September, 2010. P.C.: 1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 18­11­2009 passed by the respondent no.1. 2. The limited grievance raised by the petitioner is that the additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune does not have jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and the appellate order is liable to be set aside on this ground. 3. It appears that at the relevant time when the appeal was filed the Tribunal was not available and the Divisional Commissioners were bestowed with the powers of revisional authority, by the State Government. However it appears that when the appeal was heard, the tribunal were in existence and though 2 this fact was brought to the notice of respondent no.1, he has proceeded to hear and decide the appeal. 4. Sec. 6 of he Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act 1975 reads thus: “Settlement of disputes: ­ Where any question arises as to whether or not any forest is a private forest, or whether or not any private forest or portion thereof has vested in the State Government or whether or not any dwelling house constructed in a fest stands acquired under this act, the Collector shall decide the question, and the decision of he Collector shall, subject to the decision of the Tribunal in appeal which may be preferred to the Tribunal within sixty days from the date of the decision of he Collector, or the order of the State Government under section 18, be final”. 5. It can be seen that against the order of Collector passed under sec. 6, the appeal is tenable before the tribunal. The tribunal has been defined under sec. 2(2) as “Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal”. 6. In that view of the matter the respondent no.1 did not have jurisdiction to decide the appeal. The observations of the learned tribunal to the effect that since, at the time of filing of the appeal he was acting as an appellate authority, an subsequently MRT was established, could be a ground to hold that it had no 3 jurisdiction, is totally unsustainable. It is settled law that an order without jurisdiction is an order in nullity. In that view of the matter, rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). 7. The appeal filed by the present petitioner before the appellant no.1 is directed to be transferred to MRT who shall decide the same in accordance with the law. (B. R. GAVAI, J.)