IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 425 of 2007 (Pandurang D. Ramteke and 15 ors .vs. The State of Mah. And 3 ors) __________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders 8548.07 CORAM : C.L Pangarkar, J. DATED : 12/03/2008 Heard Shri Dhore, learned counsel for appellants and Shri J. B. Jaiswal, learned AGP for respondent No1 and Shri S. R. Deshpande, learned counsel for respondent Nos2 and 3. The original plaintiffs preferred this appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court thereby their suit came to be dismissed. The plaintiffs submit that they have been in possession of the forest land for long many years and they are in settled possession. It is contended by the plaintiffs that defendants had issued notice to them to produce documents of ownership and when the plaintiffs were actual ploughing the land, the defendants' servant had threatened to dis-possess the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs have prayed for possession, declaration that they are the owners of the suit property and injunction that the defendants should not evict them. The trial Court has found that the plaintiffs were in settled possession of the property and they could not be evicted without following due process of law. The defendants preferred appeal. The first Appellate Court found that in view of decision of the reported in AIR 1997 SCW 1263 (T. N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad ..vs.. Union of India and others) and AIR 1997 Madras 338 ( K. V. Shanmugamand vs.. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.), the plaintiffs were not entitled to any protection whatsoever, since the land in question is reserved forest area. The learned counsel for the appellants contended before me only one ground/point in respect of their eviction without following process of law. In this regard, it is to be borne in mind that the land in question admittedly reserved forest area. In the reserved forest area no activities of agriculture, etc. can be carried out as that is an offence. Further, from the plaintiffs own pleadings, it is clear that the defendants had given notice to the plaintiffs to show their documents of ownership and produce the same before the Court. This notice to the plaintiffs itself was sufficient that they were given due opportunity of showing their right to be in actual possession of the suit property. It is, therefore, apparent that the defendants had sought to evict the plaintiffs by following due process of law i. e. opportunity given to the plaintiffs of being heard on the fact that they were owners by producing documents, which clearly suggest that the defendants had given opportunity of being heard and they were sought to be evicted by following due process of law. In view of the fact that the said land is reserved forest land and in view of the decision reported in AIR 1997 SCW 1263, there is no question of admitting this appeal. No substantial question of law is involved in this second appeal. The second appeal is dismissed in limine. JUDGE. Jsa