Shri. Ramesh Kalkota S/O. ... vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 43 Bom

                  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.

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

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//