Kamaruddin N. Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra and others

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1996 Supreme(Bom) 217

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
M.B. Shah, C.J. A.V. Savant, J.
Kamaruddin N. Shaikh.... Petitioner.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and others.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 3681 of 1983 with W.P. No. 2023 of 1994, decided on 11/15/16 17-4-1996.
Advocates appeared :
Rohit Kapadia with D.B. Bhosale and A.G. Damle and A.C. Shah, for the petitioners, in W.P. No. 3681 of 1983.
M.N. Zambre, A.G.P., with R.V. Govilkar, G.P. and K.R. Belosy, A.G.P., for the petitioner in W.P. No. 2023 of 1994, for the respondents, in W.P. Nos. 3681 of 1983.
R.P. Bhatt with V.A. Gangal and Milind Sathe i/b M.P. Savla Co., for respondent No. 1, in W.P. No. 2023 of 1994.

Headnote:Article 226-Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975, Sections 5, 2(c-1) and 2(1)-Indian Forests Act, 1927, Section 35(3)-A tract of land covered with trees, shrubs, bushes or woody vegetation whether natural growth or planted maintained with or without human effort and may have effect on supply of timber, fuel, forest product, or grazing facilities etc. a forest land in view of definitions given under Section 2(c-1) and 2(1) of Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act-Land in question lying within or being a forest a forestland.
       Article 226-Indian Forest Act, 1927, Section 35(3)-Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975, Section 5-Evldence Act, 1872, Sections 3,59 and 61-Acquisition of forestland-Challenged on ground that S.D.O. not given hearing opportunity-Hut correspondence on record and proceedings showing the ample opportunity given-Hence, principle of natural Justice not violated.
       Section 35(3)-Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975, Section 5-Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 3, 59 and 61-Acquisition of forest land Challenged on ground that S.D.O. not given hearing opportunity-But correspondence on record and proceedings showing the ample opportunity given-Hence principle of natural justice not violated.
       Section 35(3)-Maharashtra Private (Acquisition) Act, 1975, Section 5-Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 3, 59 and 61-Land-Description of as forest land prima facie proof that land a forest land.
       Section 35(3)-See Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975-Section 5.
       Section 35(3)-500 Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975-Section 5.
       Section 35(3)-See Constitution of India, Article 226.
       MAHARASHTRA PRIVATE FORESTS (ACQUISITION) ACT, 1975
       Sections 5, 2(c-1) and 2(f)-Indian Forests Act, 1927, Section 35(3)-A tract of land covered with trees, shurbs, bushes or woody vegetation whether natural growth or planted maintained with or without human effort and may have effect on supply of timber, fuel, forest product or grazing facilities etc. a forest land In view of definitions given under Sections 2(c-1) and 2(f) of Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act-Land in question lying within or being a forest a forest land.
       Section S-Indian Forest Act, 1927, Section 35(3)-Maharashtra Land Revenue Tribunal-Ignored material evidence on record-High Court reached a conclusion on facts contrary to that of Tribunal-High Court ought to set aside Tribunals order and remand matter to Tribunal for considering afresh.
       Section 5-Indlan Forests Act, 1927, Section 35(3)-State Government empowered to regulate quarrying of stone, burning of lime or charcoal or collection or removal of forest produce-Presence of quarries on it-But land be a forest land-It cannot be challenged that M.R.T. not considered it forestland In earlier proceedings because M,R.T, held only that it was not needed for National Park but not that it not a forest land.
       Sections 5 and 2(C-l) 2(f)-See Constitution of India, Article 226.
       Section 5-See Indian Forest Act, 1927-Section 35(3).

JUDGMENT - M.B. SHAH, C.J.:---Writ Petition No. 3681 of 1983 filed by Kamruddin N. Shaikh and Writ Petition No. 4726 of 1986 filed by the Maharashtra Land Development Corporation were dismissed by this Court by judgment and order dated 13th/17th March, 1992. This Court arrived at the conclusion that Survey No. 345-A situated at Dahisar, Thane District which subsequently became Sub-District of Bandra, Bombay Suburban District, admeasuring 209 acres was a Forest Land. With regard to this land bearing Survey No. 345-A and other properties, it is an admitted fact that Bai Fatimabai widow of Haji Alimohammed Haji Cassum had filed Suit No. 3415 of 1947 before this Court for administration of the estate of her deceased husband and for other reliefs. The Court had appointed Receiver in respect of the suit properties. The Court Receiver had invited offers for sale of the properties and the highest offer of Rs. 13,50,000/- made by one Khimal Lalchand was accepted on 27th March, 1962. The Receiver was directed to execute a conveyance in favour of the said Lalchand. The said Lalchand thereafter promoted a Company called Veekaylal Investment Company Pvt. Ltd., to take over possession of the land at Dahisar. The Court Receiver handed over possession of the said land to the said Company in November, 1962.

2. It is the say of petitioner Kamruddin Shaikh that purchaser M/s. Veekaylal Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., entered into an Agreement for Sale dated 10th August, 1970 with M/s. Vijay Associates, a partnership firm, for a portion of the land out of Survey No. 345-A and that the petitioner was put in possession of the said land on the basis of an Agreement dated 9th September, 1971 with M/s. Vijay Associates. Pursuant to the said Agreement, the petitioner has acquired a legal right to remove clay, mud, stone, murram and of quarrying the hillock on the said land. It is also stated that in 1972, some disputes arose between

M/s. Veekaylal Investment Co. and M/s. Vijay Associates, and Short Cause No. 6726 of 1973 was filed in the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay in which the petitioner was party defendant. That suit was settled outside the Court and a fresh Agreement was signed between the parties on 29th August, 1974 according to which the petitioner remained in possession of 50 acres out of Survey No. 345-A. The petitioner is carrying on quarring operation in the said land.

3. It is also pointed out that in the inquiry held under section 6, the petitioner, by letter dated 3rd October, 1975, informed the Competent Authority that he was in possession of the land admeasuring 50 acres and that his property interests should be protected. However, without giving any hearing, final order was passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bombay Suburban District, Bombay, holding that the land in question was private forest. He has also pointed out that against that order M/s. Veekaylal Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal bearing No. Rev. Forest 1 of 1975 before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. That appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal. The petitioner says that thereafter, he received letter dated 2nd January, 1976 from the Divisional Forest Officer, Borivali, directing to stop quarrying operations and to pay royalty to Forest Department. On the advice of his Advocate, the petitioner filed S.C. Suit No. 1918 of 1976 on 17th March, 1976 in the Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay for a declaration that the order issued by the Tahsildar was without jurisdiction and void. The petitioner also prayed for permanent injunction restraining the Tahsildar from taking possession of the land admeasuring 50 acres out of Survey No. 345-A. Interim injunction was granted in favour of the petitioner in the said suit. It means that the petitioner Kamruddin claims interest in land admeasuring 50 acres only.

4. Further, it is also pointed out that by a conveyance deed dated 29th March, 1975 the Court Receiver conveyed about 53 acres of land in favour of the Maharashtra Land Dev

Click Here to Read the rest of this document