wp4457.15.odt 1/3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.4457 OF 2015
PETITIONER: Shri Ramesh Kalkota S/o
Shankarayya, Aged about 56 years,
Occu: Agriculturist, R/o House
No.692, Ward No.3, Sironcha District
Gadchiroli.
-VERSUS-
RESPONDENTS: ig 1. The State of Maharashtra Through
the Sub Divisional Officer, Aheri, District Gadchiroli.
2. The Divisional Conservator of Forest, Sironcha Forest Division, Sironcha, District Gadchiroli.
Shri S. S. Sanyal with Shri Sahare, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Tajwar Khan, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Shri Prashant Gode, Advocate for the respondent No.2.
CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK
AND A.S. CHANDURKAR JJ.
DATED : 25TH
FEBRUARY, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, J)
Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petition is
heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.
The petitioner has filed the instant petition for a direction to the respondent No.2 to permit the petitioner to cut the trees on the land owned by him and further grant permission to transport the wood.
::: Uploaded on - 29/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:37:19 :::wp4457.15.odt 2/3 The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land on which there are about 54 teak trees. The petitioner made an application on 10-2-2011 for permission to cut the trees under the provisions of Maharashtra Felling of Trees (Regulation) Act, 1964. The Talathi gave a report that the petitioner is the owner of land Survey No.10. On 18-2-
2011, according to the petitioner, the respondent No.1 - Sub Divisional Officer informed the petitioner that the land was inspected and demarcated by the officials of the Revenue Department. Since all the formalities were complete, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was expecting the permission from the respondent No.2 to cut the trees and transport them. It is stated that on 13-12-2011, all the necessary documents were dispatched to the respondent No.2. According to the petitioner, the petitioner received a communication from the respondent No.2 that the name of the petitioner is not recorded properly in the Adhikar Abhilek Patra and the petitioner should file a copy of the said document. It is the case of the petitioner that despite the application, the petitioner did not receive the Adhikar Abhilekh Patra from the office of the Naib Tahasildar as the record for the relevant period was not available. The petitioner has filed the instant petition in the aforesaid background.
After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, we had issued notice to the respondents and had also directed the learned Assistant Government Pleader by the order dated 4-2-2016 to seek instructions in regard to the availability of the Bandobast Map - Adhikar ::: Uploaded on - 29/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:37:19 ::: wp4457.15.odt 3/3 Abhilekh Patra of the year 1954-55. In pursuance of our directions, the Naib Tahasildar has filed the affidavit-in-reply on 18-2-2016. It is stated therein that the Adhikar Abhilekh Patra for the year 1954-55 is available and it has recorded the name of Ganga Bapur Ajmera in respect of the land in old Survey No.11/10 admeasuring 1.36 R presently Survey No.10. A copy of the Bandobast Map is annexed to the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.1.
Shri Gode, the learned Counsel for the respondent No.2 states on a perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 that the petitioner should produce the copy of the said document before the respondent No.2 and then the respondent No.2 would consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with law.
In view of the statement made by the learned Counsel for the respondent No.2, the grievance of the petitioner would stand redressed at this stage. Due to the redressal of the grievance of the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent No.2 to decide the application of the petitioner in accordance with law as early as possible and positively within a period of four months from the date of submission of the document by the petitioner. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
//MULEY//
::: Uploaded on - 29/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:37:19 :::