Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

18. The other facts which need to be noticed are in writ petition No. 2196 of 2006 i.e. filed by M/s Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Pvt.Ltd. There, the properties of the said petitioners affected by the notices, are those mentioned in para 2 of the petition. They appear to be principally located in village Vikhroli of Mumbai. It is their case that in Government Gazette dated 6th September, 1956 a notice bearing WT/53 was published in pursuance of Section 35(3) of 1927 Act. The Manager of the factory of the first petitioner was called upon to appear before the Divisional Forest Officer (DFO for short), West, Thane to show cause why notification under Section 35(1) of 1927 Act should not be made in respect of the land in village Vikhroli. It is the Page 0967 case of the petitioners that the copy of the said notice was not served on M/s Godrej Boyce. Therefore, at the relevant point of time, the first petitioner was not even aware of the notice. They became aware of the notice for the first time on 10th June, 2006. It is their specific case that no notification under Section 35(1) of the 1927 Act was published pursuant to the aforesaid notice. In such circumstances and when the lands are falling within the residential zone under the Development Plan of 1967, the petitioners have constructed between 1957 and 1976, 34 buildings containing 268 tenements on the land situated on the West of L.B.S.Marg. These buildings were constructed after obtaining necessary sanctions and approvals. They have been used as staff quarters. All buildings are currently occupied. In such circumstances and when even the revised Development Plan of 1991, continuing the zonal designation, there is no question of giving effect to any of the notices. There is a reference made to the proceedings under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 where under returns were finalized and such of the lands which were declared as surplus vacant lands in this urban agglomeration were made subject matter of exemption under the Exemption Order dated 5th October, 1984 issued under Section 20 of ULC Act. The petitioners have made a detailed reference to the construction carried out pursuant to the Exemption Order and the project/buildings under construction. It is their case that in so far as the buildings under construction are concerned, respondent No. 4 the Municipal Corporation of Brihan Mumbai issued stop work notice under Section 354A of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. These notices made a reference to the same communication from the second respondent i.e. State of Maharashtra/Deputy Conservator of Forest, Thane Forest Division stating the lands were affected by the Private Forest Act as they are "private forests". The petitioners were, therefore, called upon to obtain necessary permissions under the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 from the Central Government for works other than the forests on these lands.

19. It is the case of the petitioners that they replied to the notices and pointed out that the construction on the land was carried out after necessary permissions have been obtained. The construction is not illegal or unauthorised. Therefore, the notices be withdrawn.

20. The petitioners contend that subsequently they obtained copy of the letter dated 8th May, 2006. This is a letter which has been referred to in the 6th Notice addressed to them. The letter of 8th May, 2006 is issued by the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Thane Forest Division and he requested the Municipal Corporation to inform him about the permission granted for the activities other than forest in certain areas. That information is sought in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in P.I.L.No. 17 of 2002. It is the case of the petitioners that their land, in respect of which notices under Section 35(3) of 1927 Act were issued earlier, are referred to in the communication of 8th May, 2006.

41. An affidavit has been filed by the Assistant Conservator of Forest, (LRP) Thane, Bharat Nimbaji Rathod and the statements therein proceed on the basis that the petitions are not maintainable. However, it is further stated that in paras 4, 5 and 6 of the affidavit as under:

4. Without prejudice to the foregoing, I respectfully say and submit as under:
I say that PIL Writ Petition No. 17 of 2002 came to be filed by the Bombay Environmental Action Group inter alia, praying for the reliefs that the lands acquired under the Maharashtra Private Forest Acquisition Act, 1975 have not been recorded in the Record of Rights in the State of Maharashtra. I say that the said petition also sought the updating of the revenue record by the State authorities. I say that the said writ petition came to be disposed of by a Division Bench comprising of Their Lordships the Hon'ble the then Chief Justice Mr.Dalveer C.Bhandari and the Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.J.Vazifdar by their order dated 22nd June, 2005. I say that by the said order the Division Bench had issued a direction in paragraph which for convenience sake is quoted herein under.

45. In these state of affairs and when the Advocate's affidavit dated 18th July, 2007 was placed before us we permitted the State to rejoinder/reply and on 10th October, 2007 Joint Secretary in the Government of Maharashtra, Forest Department filed the affidavit and urged that the data from Thane Division shows that the notices have been issued by the then Officer of Conservator of Forest, Western Circle, Nashik and Conservator of Forest, Thane. The details thereof are thus:

2. I further say that yearwise break up of notices issued by the then Officer of Conservator of Forests, Western Circle, Nashik is as follows: