Point of Law: Environmental Law - Unauthorized encroachment on forest land - Cancellation of any permission/Licences - Section 2 of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Transfer of forest land to User Agency shall not be affected by State Government till formal order approving the diversion of forest land is issued by Central Government.

JUDGMENT :

MILIND N. JADHAV, J.

1. Heard Mr. Jamsheed Master, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Ms. R.M. Shinde, learned AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 and Mr. A.M. Sethna, learned counsel for Respondent No. 2.

2. By the present Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the recommendations made in the impugned letter dated 17th October, 2019 and 10th February, 2021 by Respondent No. 3 and direct Respondent No. 1 not to act on the said recommendations.

(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or such other writ as this Hon'ble Court may deed fit to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to expeditiously decide the pending application under section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.”

3. The Petitioners have challenged the validity and legality of two communications dated 17.10.2019 and 10.02.2021 issued by Respondent No. 3 i.e. the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Nagpur (through its Nodal Officer) to Respondent No. 1 i.e. the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, State Government of Maharashtra recommending withdrawal of the recommendation made by the State Government vide letter dated 01.06.2007 to the Central Government for seeking approval under section 2(ii) of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.

4. Before we advert to the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, it would be apposite to refer to the relevant facts briefly:

4.1. Petitioners are the owners of land ad-measuring 0.056 HA out of Gat No. 199, Original Survey No. 65/2 in Village Aundholi, Taluka Maval, District Pune (hereinafter referred to as the “said land”). Petitioners purchased the said land by a registered sale deed in the year 1998 after carrying out sufficient due diligence to ascertain the legal title in the said land and also undertook a search in the office of the City Survey Department in respect of the 7/12 extract of the said land for the past 30 years prior to the date of purchase. The 7/12 extract obtained by the Petitioners showed that the said land was neither shown as private forest or reserved forest in the revenue records at any point of time.

4.2. On 23.06.2003, the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Pune Forest Division issued a reminder notice to Petitioner No. 1 giving reference to notice dated 28.02.2003 issued under section 35(1) of the Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Act”) to show cause as to why the Petitioners should not be evicted from the said land for unauthorized encroachment on forest land and cancellation of any permission/licences granted to the Petitioners. By letter dated 27.06.2003 Petitioners replied to the above notice stating that the Petitioners were not aware of any acquisition proceedings in respect of the said land and at the time of purchase of the said land in the year 1996 there was no such embargo or encumbrance stated in the land record pertaining to the said land.

4.3. On 18.07.2003, Petitioner No. 1 filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO), Maval (hereinafter referred to as the “SDO, Maval”) under the provisions of section 22A of the said Act for restoration of the said land in favour of the Petitioners by enclosing the necessary documentation. On 19.08.2003, the SDO, Maval addressed a letter to Tehsildar, Maval for carrying out the inquiry and submit a report in respect of the Petitioners' holding and application seeking restoration and submit the same to the office of SDO, Maval.

4.4. On 5.12.2003, the Deputy Conservator of Forest, Pune Division addressed a letter to SDO, Maval giving his “no-objection” to the Petitioners' application for restoration if the Petitioners were eligible for seeking restoration under section 22A of the said Act.

4.5. By order dated 29.12.2003, SDO, Maval passed order of restoration under the p