JUDGMENT : V.M. Pancholi, J. 1. By way of this writ petition which is in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: "(A) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to stop the vacating of their house/huts by forced to the respondents. (B) Your Lordships be pleased to issue a writ of or in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents directing them to take appropriate action pursuant to the notice issued by them for resettlement of the group of tribal people. (C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be pleased to direct to grant stay on operation of the respondents, state to vacate premises/houses/huts and grant peoples alternative houses for their resident." 2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Narpatsinh Vasava for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader Ms. Manisha Lavkumar for the respondents. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is a social worker and doing welfare activities through an organization. The present petition is filed in public interest. It is contended that the group of tribal are cultivating forest land since 2000 and they are residing in small houses/huts in the forest nearby village Satkashi, Taluka Songadh, District Tapi. The Gram Panchayat, Amalpada has also collected house-tax from this group of people. However, there is no facilities of road, electricity, drinking water, school and there is no medical facility available to such persons. Learned advocate has referred to the order dated 02.02.2016 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 901 of 2015, a petition filed on behalf of 73 families of the said group, wherein this Court has issued direction to the respondents to depute an officer of a rank of DCF who shall look into the grievance of the petitioner and after giving opportunity of being heard to the representative of the petitioner, appropriate steps shall be taken within a stipulated time limit. It was also directed to take an appropriate decision keeping in mind the provisions of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). It was also directed to take an appropriate decision keeping in mind the provisions of the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short). It is contended that though this Court has given direction to give an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners, notices were sent at wrong address so that the said 73 families cannot make a representation. 4. Moreover, after passing of the order by this Court, the officers of the respondents are harassing the aforesaid group of persons. It is also alleged that Forest Department has made a team for harassment to the said people and the said team has burnt the houses/huts and the members of 85 such families were forced to go out from their house. Learned advocate has referred the photographs annexed with the petition. 5. Learned advocate for the petitioner further contended that after the notice was issued by this Court on 08.06.2016, when the said notice was served, respondents forcibly tried to dispossess the aforesaid members of 85 families from possession and therefore when the said aspect was pointed out to this Court on 17.06.2016, this Court passed an order whereby the respondents were directed to maintain status quo with regard to possession. In spite of the same, respondent authorities harassed such families and therefore this Court may pass appropriate order giving necessary direction to the respondent authorities. 6. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submitted that the families whose reference is made in the petition are in fact hail from the State of Maharashtra and are staying at village Akkalkuva, Taluka: Nandarbar, a region in Maharashtra which is near to the southern part of the Gujarat interstate boarder area. In fact such families have illegally trespassed in the forest area for commercial cultivation and cut the trees in the forests. They are frequently caught roaming in the protected and reserved forest areas of South Gujarat. 73 families had earlier preferred Special Civil Application No. 901 of 2016 before this Court, wherein the petitioners of the said petition have prayed for different relief/s. This Court by an order dated 08.02.2016 directed the respondent authorities to take appropriate decision in accordance with law. 73 families had earlier preferred Special Civil Application No. 901 of 2016 before this Court, wherein the petitioners of the said petition have prayed for different relief/s. This Court by an order dated 08.02.2016 directed the respondent authorities to take appropriate decision in accordance with law. As per the direction given by this Court, the respondent authorities have duly informed the petitioners with regard to giving an opportunity of hearing to be held on 10.03.2016 at village Satkasi, Taluka Songadh, District Tapi. On 28.03.2016 at the office of the DCF, Vyara, such hearing was kept. At the time of hearing and after hearing, documents furnished by the Talati-cum-Mantri, Sarpanch and Joint Forest Management Committee have been examined and it was found that the petitioners are not residing at village Satkasi and notices sent by RPAD to those 73 families were returned back with an endorsement that they are not residing at given address. The DCF, Vyara, therefore, visited Satkasi village personally and during his meeting, the local villager viz. One Shri Maganbhai Dungariyabhai of Satkasi village had informed that petitioner No. 1 of Special Civil Application No. 901 of 2016 is originally resident of village Dabh, Taluka Akkalkuwa, Maharashtra and he was resided in his house as tenant and was working in Central Pulp Mill (Songadh) as daily wager. In fact the said petitioner was not domicile of the said village. Such information was corroborated by other residents of the said village as well as the Gram Panchayat. Similar such statement of several other villagers were also recorded. It is further pointed out that Van Adhikar Samiti, Satkasi Juth Gram Panchayat, Aamalpada had given the statement that none of these 73 people were domicile of Satkasi village nor they were farming on forest land. Learned Government Pleader has referred to some of such statements. 7. In the aforesaid factual background, learned Government Pleader submitted that the Act of 2006 is confined to those who primarily reside in forest area and those who depend on forest and forest land for their livelihood and for claiming right under this Act, the claimant must be a member of the Scheduled Tribes scheduled in that area or must have been residing in the forest for 75 years. Thus, in the facts of the present case, the aforesaid 85 families are not eligible to claim their rights under the Act of 2006. 8. Thus, in the facts of the present case, the aforesaid 85 families are not eligible to claim their rights under the Act of 2006. 8. It is thereafter contended that on 31.03.2016, 64 out of 73 persons remained present at the Division Office, Vyara along with their advocate and at that time they claimed that they are residing in forest area in village Satkasi since decades. Other 44 out of 64 such persons were unable to produce any evidence to show that they are residing at reserved forest area of Satkasi village. Other 20 persons out of 64 have produced evidence such as Election Card, Aadhar Card, which were issued by the State of Maharashtra. Thus, it is clear from the record that such persons are not residing in the forest area since decades and therefore a detailed report was prepared by the Range Forest Officer, Tapi and Vajpur and Mamlatdar Songadh and pursuant to the said report, Collector, Vyara had called for a meeting with the District and Taluka Level Officers on 10.05.2016. From the report it is clear that the aforesaid 73 families have never resided in the forest area. Learned Government Pleader has denied the allegation made in the petition that the respondent authorities have harassed in any manner to the 73 families as alleged in the petition. 9. Learned Government Pleader thereafter submitted that petitioner has tried to mislead this Court by producing photographs of some other place by stating that the forest staff is harassing people and forced to vacate their house. Learned Government Pleader referred to two sets of photographs; one is of Toran Pani Forest Area of Tapi Range, whereas the another is of Satkasi village. At this stage, it is contended that pursuant to the order of status quo granted by this Court, some of the people from 73 families had tried to enter into reserved forest area wherein at the check post they were stopped by the officials of the forest department as they were neither in possession of the forest land nor the resident of Satkasi village. 10. Learned Government Pleader therefore, submitted that this public interest litigation is in fact not in public interest and the petitioner has tried to misguide this Court by making certain false averments against the respondent authorities and the petitioners are trying to establish that they are resident in the area since long. 10. Learned Government Pleader therefore, submitted that this public interest litigation is in fact not in public interest and the petitioner has tried to misguide this Court by making certain false averments against the respondent authorities and the petitioners are trying to establish that they are resident in the area since long. Therefore, when the petition is not filed with bona fide intention, this Court may dismiss the same. 11. Learned advocate Mr. Narpatsinh Vasava appearing for the petitioner in rejoinder submitted that the respondent authority has not given an opportunity of hearing as directed by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. In fact the notice sent by regd. post by the respondent authority was dispatched at wrong address so that the concerned person cannot remain present for hearing before the authority. Learned advocate submitted that the concerned persons are residing at Toran Pani Forest and the notices were sent at Kuilivel branch post office under Sagbara sub post office, which is more than 50 km. away from Toran Pani Forest. It is further contended that the group of people for whom the petition is filed were earlier residing and working at Vajpur fort where Ukai dam is constructed and therefore they left the said place. It is further submitted that the facilities of road, electricity, drinking water and medical assistance were provided to the villagers of Satkasi village, whereas the group of people for whom the petition is filed are residing in interior forest i.e. more than 15 kms. away from village Satkasi. Learned advocate for the petitioner, therefore, requested that the reliefs prayed for in this petition be granted. 12. We have considered the submissions canvassed on behalf of learned advocate appearing for the parties. We have gone through the material produced on record. It has emerged from the record that 73 families for whom the present petition is filed had earlier preferred Special Civil Application No. 901 of 2016 before this Court in which they have ventilated their grievance that since even after 67 years of independence, the petitioners who are forest dwellers have not been given basic facilities like road, electricity, drinking water. It was their case that they have paid their tax to the Panchayat and stayed in forest area and they have till date not asserted their rights before the authority. It was their case that they have paid their tax to the Panchayat and stayed in forest area and they have till date not asserted their rights before the authority. The learned Single Judge after considering the provisions of the Act of 2006 directed the respondent authorities to look into the grievance of 73 petitioners individually and give an opportunity of hearing to one representative of the petitioners. 13. From the affidavit filed by the respondent authorities, it is clear that the respondent authorities have duly informed the petitioner with regard to giving an opportunity of hearing to be held on 10.03.2016 at village Satkasi, Taluka Songadh, District Tapi. Thereafter, on 28.03.2016 at the office of DCF, Vyara, hearing was kept. At the time of hearing, the documents furnished by the Talati-cum-Mantri, Sarpanch and Joint Forest Management Committee have been examined and it was found that the petitioners are not residing at village Satkasi. The notices sent by RPAD to those 73 families were returned back with an endorsement that they are not residing at given address. The DCF, Vyara, therefore, visited Satkasi village personally and met the local villagers. Statements of some of the villagers were recorded. During that visit, it was found that petitioner No. 1 of petition being Special Civil Application No. 901 of 2016 is originally resident of village Dabh, Taluka Akkalkuwa, Maharashtra and he was resided in the house of one Maganbhai Dungariyabhai as tenant. It was also found that the said person was working in Central Pulp Mill (Songadh) as daily wager. The other residents of the village also corroborated the said statement given by Shri Maganbhai Dungariyabhai. Moreover, Van Adhikar Samiti, Satkasi Juth Gram Panchayat, Aamalpada had given a statement that none of these 73 families were domicile of Satkasi village nor they were farming on forest land. 14. In para 4.2 of the present petition, the petitioner has averred that more than 85 families were affected by burning their houses/huts in the forest nearby village Satkasi, Taluka: Songadh, District: Tapi, whereas in para 1 of the affidavit-in-rejoinder, it has been stated that though the officers are aware that the concerned persons are residing at Toran Pani Forest, the notices were sent at Kuilivel branch post office. Thus, from the averments made by the petitioner itself, it is clear that different stand is taken in the petition as well as affidavit-in-rejoinder with regard to the place of residence of 73/85 families. 15. It is further revealed that on 31.03.2016, 64 out of 73 persons remained present at the Division Office, Vyara along with their advocate. At that time, they claimed that they are residing in forest area in village Satkasi since decades. Further, from the affidavit filed by the respondent authorities it is clear that out of 64 persons who remained present, 44 persons were unable to produce any evidence to show that they are residing at reserved forest area of Satkasi village. Other 20 persons out of 64 have produced evidence such as Election Card, Aadhar Card, etc. However, such cards were issued by the State of Maharashtra. The Range Forest Officer, Tapi and Vajpur, therefore, prepared a report. The Mamlatdar, Songadh has also prepared a report. Such reports were sent to Collector, Vyara who called a meeting with the District and Taluka Level Officers on 10.05.2016. From the report, it is clear that 73 families have never resided in the forest area as contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner. Learned Government Pleader has further contended that when this Court granted order of status-quo in the present proceedings, some of the people from 73 families had tried to enter into reserved forest area and at the check-post they were stopped by the officers of the forest department as they were neither in possession of the forest land nor the resident of Satkasi village. 16. In view of the aforesaid facts, we deem it proper to make reference of the relevant provisions of the Act of 2006. Section 2(c) & (o) of the Act of 2006 provide thus: "2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires.- xxxx (c) "forest dwelling Scheduled Tribes" means the members or community of the Scheduled Tribes who primarily reside in and who depend on the forests or forest lands for bona fide livelihood needs and includes the Scheduled Tribe pastoralist communities." xxxx (o) "other traditional forest dweller" means any member or community who has for at least three generations prior to the 13th day of December, 2005 primarily resided in and who depend on the forest land for bona fide livelihood needs. Explanation.-For the purpose of this clause, "generation" means a period comprising of twenty-five years;" 17. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the considered view that the respondent authorities have verified the details as to whether the 73 families who have filed petition being Special Civil Application No. 901 of 2016 are actually residing at the place in question or not. A detailed report is prepared on the basis of the material collected and when the petitioners have failed to produce any material to suggest that they are residing at the place in question since three generations i.e. since last 75 years, this Court cannot enter into the disputed questions of fact while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 18. From the aforesaid provisions contained in the Act of 2006, it can be said that the said Act is confined to those persons who primarily reside in forest area and depend on forest and forest land for their livelihood. The claimant must be a member of the Scheduled Tribes scheduled in that area and must have been resided in the forest area since last three generations i.e. since last 75 years. 19. From the aforesaid discussions, it is clear that 85 families for whom the petition is filed have failed to produce any material to suggest that they are residing at the place in dispute since number of years as prescribed in the Act of 2006 and therefore the benefit claimed under the Act of 2006 would not be available to them. Accordingly, we see no merit in the present writ petition and hence it is dismissed. Interim relief stands vacated.