Bombay High Court
Shri Sai Mining And Mineral Works, ... vs State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Its ... on 27 January, 2021
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Avinash G. Gharote
mca57.21.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 57/2021
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 2258/2018
PETITIONER : Shri Sai Mining and Mineral Works, through
its Proprietor Shri Sanjay S/o. Dnyanesh Warke
aged about 47 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Paper
Mill, Opposite New Colony Gate, Kannamwar
Ward, Ballarpur, Tahsil and District Chandrapur
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENTS: 1. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary,
Ministry of Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. The Additional Collector, Chandrapur,
Collectorate Office, Chandrapur.
3. The Collector, Chandrapur,
Collectorate Office, Chandrapur.
4. The Deputy Conservator of Forests,
Central Chanda, District Chandrapur,
Mul Road, infront of Mata Mandir,
Chandrapur.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner in person
Shri N.R.Patil, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.
DATE : 27/01/2021.
mca57.21.odt
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)
C.A.O. NO. 536/2020
Heard.
For the reasons stated in the application, the
application is allowed.
Review application be registered forthwith.
MCA NO. 57/2021
1] Review Application is taken up forthwith for hearing.
2] Heard the petitioner who has appeared in person and
Shri N.R.Patil, learned AGP for respondents, who has appeared by
waiving notice.
3] Heard finally by consent.
4] The reply filed on record by the respondent Nos. 1
and 4 is very clear and it shows that this review application is
devoid of any merit.
mca57.21.odt
5] It is the contention of the petitioner in person that
although he had argued that Government of Maharashtra never
issued any notification declaring the subject land of which Survey
Number is 6 of Mouza Khadki, Taluka-Jivti, District - Chandrapur is
a part of a forest reserve land and that this contention was not
considered by this Court.
6] Learned AGP disagrees with the contention of the
petitioner.
7] A bare perusal of the order would show that this
contention was indeed considered by this Court in the light of the
notification dated 25.09.1953 issued by the then Hyderabad State,
which was a part of Adilabad District during Nizam Rule. This Court
found that after Nizam, this area became a part of Nanded District
and after 1960, it became a part of Chandrapur District, which was
made part of newly reorganized State of Maharashtra. This is how
this Court found that the effect of notification dated 25.09.1953
continued even after the area where the land of the petitioner is
situated became a part of the newly reorganized State of
mca57.21.odt
Maharashtra. Of course, at that time, it was not considered by this
Court as to how the notification issued by the erstwhile Hyderabad
State in the year 1953 continued to remain in force and followed
even after the village Khadki become a part of the State of
Maharashtra. But, now this fact has been clarified by respondent
Nos. 1 and 4 in the detailed reply filed by them before this Court.
8] The reply of the aforestated respondents shows that the
notification dated 25.09.1953 which was published in Government
Gazette on 08.10.1953 was saved by virtue of the provisions made in
Section 17 of the Indian Forest Act (Maharashtra Unification and
Amendment) Act, 1960. Reply further shows that by virtue of
Section 17, the notification dated 25.09.1953 continued to remain in
force even after the State of Maharashtra was formed and it is so
even today. For the sake of convenience, Section 17 of the Indian
Forest Act (Maharashtra Unification and Amendment) Act, 1960, is
reproduced below;
"Section 17 . The repeal of the provisions of the
Hyderabad Forest Act, 1355F by section 2 shall not
affect -
mca57.21.odt
a) The previous operation of the Act so repealed,
or anything duly done or suffered thereunder;
b) Any right, privilege, obligation or liability
acquired, accrued or incurred under the Act so
repealed; or
c) Any penalty, forfeiture or punishment incurred
in respect of any offence committed against any
of the provisions of the Act so repealed; or
d) Any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy
in respect of any such right, privilege,
obligation, liability penalty, forfeiture or
punishment as aforesaid,
and any such investigation, legal proceeding or
remedy may be instituted, continued or enforced,
and any such penalty, forfeiture or punishment may
be imposed, as if this Act had not been passed.
Provided that, subject to the preceding provision,
anything done or any action taken (including
notification and directions issued, rules,
appointments, authorizations, inquiries, orders,
declarations, assignment or seizures of property
made, forest courts established, powers of sanction
given, licenses, permissions or passes granted,
proclamations published, entries recorded, notices
issued or served, control or management of forest
assumed and bonds executed) by or under the
provisions of the Act so repealed shall, in so far as it
is not inconsistent with the provisions of the
principal Act as amended by this Act, be deemed to
be done or taken under the corresponding,
provisions of the principal Act, and shall, until
altered, repealed or amended by anything done or
any action taken, the principal Act continue in force
accordingly."
mca57.21.odt
9] It would be clear from the provision made in the above
referred section, that all notifications, directions issued, rules,
appointments, authorizations, inquiries, orders, declarations,
assignments and so and so far by deeming fiction have been
considered to be done or taken under the corresponding provision of
the principal Act i.e. Indian Forest Act and shall be so until altered,
repealed or amended by anything done or any action taken against
the principal Act. They also make it clear that till such alteration or
repeal or amendment is done, all the notification and other
instruments and the acts as mentioned in Section 17 would continue
to have force. So the notification dated 25.09.1953 declaring the
subject land to be reserved forest land even today continues to
remain in force and therefore, it cannot be said that the land of the
petitioner bearing Survey No. 6 of Mouza Khadki is not affected by
such a declaration. The moment the land of the petitioner is found to
be categorized not as a free hold land but a land under reserved
forest, no mining lease can be granted by the Collector of the District.
mca57.21.odt
10] So far as the provisions contained in Section 17 of the
Indian Forest Act, the petitioner in person has not argued anything.
His only argument is that there was no notification issued by the
State of Maharashtra declaring the subject land to be the reserved
forest land. This argument apart from the fact that this was
considered earlier has also now been answered in details by this
order.
11] In the result, we do not find any error which is apparent
on the face of the record and the order sought to be reviewed by the
petitioner in person. The review petition is devoid of merit and it
stands dismissed. No costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
Digitally
signed by
Rvjalit Rajesh Rajesh Jalit
Date:
Jalit 2021.01.28
17:03:32
+0530
