JUDGMENT Z.A. Haq, J. (Oral) - Heard. 2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith. 3. Undisputedly an agreement of mining lease is executed on behalf of the State Government in favour of the petitioner on 12th June, 2003, the mining lease being for the period of 30 years. There is no dispute that pursuant to the agreement of mining lease the petitioner started its activity and excavation work since September, 2003. In October, 2009 Forest Round Officer, Gadchandur called upon the petitioner firm to produce documents to show that it is entitled to carry out the excavation work on the land in question. The petitioner firm claims that it had produced all the documents before the Central Chanda Forest Department along with a communication dated 8th October, 2009. A communication dated 15th October, 2009 was issued by the forest department asking the petitioner firm to stop the excavation work on the land in question. The petitioner firm had filed Regular Civil Suit No. 179/2009 praying for decree for perpetual injunction restraining Central Chanda Forest Department (defendant No. 2 in the civil suit) from causing any hindrance/impediment in the excavation work of the petitioner on the land in question. In this civil suit the State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Chandrapur was defendant No. 1. The State of Maharashtra had filed its written statement stating that the mining lease was granted in favour of the petitioner firm after making all the necessary enquiry and following the due procedure. In the written statement it was also stated that before submitting the proposal for grant of mining lease, permission of forest department was taken. Central Chanda Forest Department (defendant No. 2 in the civil suit) had filed separate written statement. Central Chanda Forest Department claimed that the land in question was forest land and for this, reliance was placed on the notification issued under Hyderabad Forest Act and was published in the Government Gazette dated 8th October, 1953 (at page No. 147 of paper book of writ petition). The trial of civil suit progressed and by judgment dated 6th February, 2012 trial Court granted decree in favour of the petitioner firm restraining Central Chanda Forest Department (defendant No. 2 in the civil suit) from causing any obstruction in the mining work of the petitioner firm on the suit land. The trial of civil suit progressed and by judgment dated 6th February, 2012 trial Court granted decree in favour of the petitioner firm restraining Central Chanda Forest Department (defendant No. 2 in the civil suit) from causing any obstruction in the mining work of the petitioner firm on the suit land. This judgment and decree is not challenged either by the State of Maharashtra or Central Chanda Forest Department. 4. Now the Additional Commissioner, Chandrapur has passed an order on 25th May, 2017 calling upon the petitioner firm to seek permission from the forest department for carrying out its activity/excavation work on the land in question. 5. When the writ petition came up for consideration before this Court on 7th September, 2017 this Court directed issuance of notice to the respondents and passed an interim order directing the Additional Collector, Chandrapur to consider the request of the petitioner firm for issuance of transit pass, considering the effect of judgment and decree passed in Regular Civil suit No. 179/2009. Accordingly, the learned Additional Collector has considered the matter and by order/communication dated 29th September, 2017 has rejected the request for issuance of transit pass to the petitioner firm. The petitioner firm has amended this writ petition and challenged the order dated 29th September, 2017. 6. After hearing the learned Government Pleader Shri S.Y. Deopujari and considering the submissions and documents filed on behalf of the respondents, I find that the impugned order is being supported by the respondents, as according to them, the land in question is said to be a forest land. The respondents are relying on the stand taken by the Forest Department that the land in question is ''forest land'' and for this purpose, Hyderabad Government Gazette dated 8th October, 1953 in which notification of Forest Department dated 25th September, 1953 was published, is referred. 7. Writ Petition No. 3669 of 2009 was filed before this Court by Ulhas S/o Vasantrao Bommewar, perhaps in public interest, complaining that the State Government was granting lease of forest land for mining purposes. In this Writ Petition No. 3669 of 2009, the Division Bench of this Court had passed an order on 13th October, 2010 directing the Collector, Chandrapur to prepare a map of Chandrapur district showing at a glance the land which fall under ''forest area'' and land which fall under ''revenue area''. In this Writ Petition No. 3669 of 2009, the Division Bench of this Court had passed an order on 13th October, 2010 directing the Collector, Chandrapur to prepare a map of Chandrapur district showing at a glance the land which fall under ''forest area'' and land which fall under ''revenue area''. It was directed that the exercise should be done in consultation with the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests at Nagpur and on the basis of the entries in the revenue record, the record of the forest department, relevant notifications regarding forest and notifications regarding change in user. 8. According to the respondents, as per this order dated 13th October, 2010 a committee came to be constituted under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary and a map is prepared showing ''revenue land'', ''forest land'' and ''private land'' in Chandrapur district. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that identification of some land, whether it will be under forest department or under revenue department, could not be established on the basis of the material available with the concerned departments and forest department as well as revenue department claim that these lands belong to them. According to the respondents, these disputed lands are separately shown in the map and it is decided to consider these lands as ''forest land'', however, as most of these lands are being used for residential purpose, agricultural purpose and for mining and other similar uses, the State Government has decided to seek exemption from the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India and accordingly, the proposal is submitted on 25th October, 2015. According to the respondents, this proposal is still pending and the land allotted to the petitioner firm is one of these disputed lands in respect of which proposal seeking exemption is pending. The impugned order is justified in this background. 9. It is undisputed that mining lease is granted in favour of the petitioner firm on 12th June, 2003 for 30 years. In the written statement, which was filed on behalf of the State of Maharashtra, through Collector, Chandrapur in Regular Civil Suit No. 179/2009, the claim made by the petitioner firm about its entitlement to carry on the excavation activity was supported by the State of Maharashtra. Not only this, the State of Maharashtra had submitted in the written statement that the mining lease was granted after seeking permission of the Forest Department. Not only this, the State of Maharashtra had submitted in the written statement that the mining lease was granted after seeking permission of the Forest Department. Though the Forest Department opposed the claim of the petitioner firm by filing its written statement separately and relied on the Hyderabad Government Gazette, dated 8th October, 1953 to contend that the land in question is a ''forest land'', the Civil Court granted decree in favour of the petitioner firm, restraining the defendant No. 2 in that civil suit i.e. Central Chanda Forest Department from obstructing the activity of excavation by the petitioner firm defendant No. 1 in Regular Civil Suit No. 179/2009 and the respondents accepted the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and have not challenged it. 10. Even the submissions made on behalf of the respondents before this Court show that the respondents are not having any objection for user of the lands which are considered as ''disputed lands'' for purposes other than forest purposes. Along with the submissions filed by the respondents in the present writ petition, copy of affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in Writ Petition No. 3669/2009 is placed on record. Para 4 of this affidavit is relevant and is as follows: "4. As regards, the directions issued by the Hon''ble Court in Writ Petition No. 3669/2009, maps showing revenue, forest and private lands in Chandrapur District in different colours have been prepared by the MRSAC. For classification of the said land, considerable joint meetings of Forest Department level and Revenue Department were taken. Ownership was established on the basis of records of both the departments. However, on some lands both the Revenue and Forest Department claimed ownership. Therefore, these lands were shown to be disputed lands. Classification of said land is as under: 1) The forest department had claimed all lands as forest lands, which were included in the notification under section 4 of the Hyderabad Forest Act, 1335 Fasli in the year 1953. Actually this notification meant the intention to declare the forest land and did not amount to final notification. Actually out of these lands, as on today there being no forest on the spot and revenue villages have been settled on most of the lands and the lands have been put to residential use, agricultural use so also pasture land, graveyard, mines and other uses. Actually out of these lands, as on today there being no forest on the spot and revenue villages have been settled on most of the lands and the lands have been put to residential use, agricultural use so also pasture land, graveyard, mines and other uses. For example the most part of Jiwti Taluka has been included in the aforesaid initial notification of Hyderabad State, in 1953. Including the area where now revenue villages are settled. 2) As on today there is forest to great extent on some of the lands though the lands are of Revenue Department in Revenue records." Not only the above pleadings show that the respondents are not opposing the carrying on the other activities on the lands considered as ''disputed lands'' by the Government of Maharashtra, but the State Government itself has submitted a proposal to the Ministry of Environment and Forest, Government of India for de-notification as reserved forest (see communication dated 25th August, 2015 at page 88 of the paper book). 11. Shri F.T. Mirza, learned advocate for the petitioner has pointed out the document placed on record at page No. 152 of the paper book. This is copy of the communication sent by the Deputy Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Government of India to the Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and Collector, Chandrapur on 9th June, 2015. In this communication it is stated that as per the orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3669/2009, 33486 hectare land, which was in use for commercial purpose, agricultural, residential purpose and for public utility since prior to enforcement of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and which land is declared as ''reserved forest'' and in respect of which there is dispute whether the land is ''revenue land'' or ''forest land'', it be treated as ''forest area''. The learned advocate for the petitioner has pointed out the document placed on record at page 154 of the paper book. This document is again placed on record by the respondents along with their submissions. This document is a chart prepared by the Chief Conservator of Forests, Chandrapur and Collector, Chandrapur and it contains the details of 33486 hectare land in respect of which there is a dispute as to whether those lands belong to Revenue Department or Forest Department. At Sr. No. 15 of this chart, details of the lands of Jiwati Taluka are shown. At Sr. No. 15 of this chart, details of the lands of Jiwati Taluka are shown. The details, as given in this chart, show that no land of Jiwati Taluka notified as ''Forest Area'' is given for mining lease. 12. Considering the facts on record, it is clear that the impugned orders passed by the learned Additional Collector are not in consonance with the facts, and the stand of the respondents in Regular Civil Suit No. 179/2009 and the other documentary evidence referred and discussed above. I find that the impugned orders are unsustainable. 13. Hence, the following order: The impugned orders are set aside. Rule is made absolute accordingly. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs. Petition allowed.