Shri Coleto Remedio Simoes vs Shri Santan Lobo, Domingo Cursino Simoes alias Corciano Simoes (Mrs. Saheeda Simoes e Gonsalves, Mr. Clifford Gonsalves, Mrs. Natasha Simoes e Rodrigues, Mr. Charles Rodrigues and Mr. Ryan John Simoes, Mrs. Evelyn D''Mello e Simoes), The Conservator of Forests (Conservation), Forest Department and The Deputy Collector and SDO

A. P. Lavande, J.—Heard Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. Nagvekar, learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1, Mr. Parsekar, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2(a),2(b) & 2(c) and Mr. S. Bandodkar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

Rule. By consent, heard forthwith.

By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner challenges order dated 7/6/2010 passed by Conservator of Forests who is functioning as the Appellate Authority under the Preservation of Trees Act, 1984 ( "The Act" for short).

On 27/7/2008, the Respondent No. 1 filed an application before the Deputy Collector and Sub-Divisional Magistrate u/s 12-A of the said Act seeking direction against the Respondent to cut three coconut trees. By order dated 12/8/2009, the Dy. Collector allowed the application and directed the opponents to cut the said three coconuts trees.

Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner herein preferred an appeal under the said Act to the Conservator of Forests inter alia alleging that he along with Leticia Simoes, Respondent No. 3 were appointed as Receivers in respect of the property bearing survey No. 104/1 of Nerul village in which the said trees were existing. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal without considering the argument advanced before him that he was entitled to be heard before the Deputy Director before passing any adverse order.

By the present petition the Petitioner has challenged both these orders.

Perusal of the record discloses that in Regular Civil Suit No. 588 /2000/E pending before the Civil Judge, Jr. Divn. at Mapusa, the Petitioner and his wife Mrs. Saluzeta Gracias e Simoes have been appointed as Receivers of the property including the property bearing survey No. 104/1. This position has not been disputed by the learned Counsel appearing for the Respondents.

In view of the above, it is evident that the Appellate Authority has not even considered the stand taken by the Petitioner herein that he was entitled to be heard by the Dy. Collector and Sub-Divisional Magistrate before passing any adverse order.

In view of the above position, I am of the considered opinion that both the orders passed by the Conservator of Forests as well as the Deputy Collector and S.D.O are liable to be quashed and set aside. Both these authorities could not have passed any order directing to cut the trees without joining the Petitioner as well as Mrs. Saluzeta Gracias e Simoes who were appointed as receivers of the said property. On this ground alone the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.

In view of the above, order dated 12/8/2009 passed by Respondent No. 4 and order dated 7/6/2010 passed by Respondent No. 3 are quashed and set aside. The Respondent No. 1 shall join the Petitioner as well as Saluzeta Gracias e Simoes as party Respondents in the application dated 27/7/2008. The Respondent No. 4 shall decide the application dated 27/7/2008 filed by the Respondent No. 1 after giving an opportunity of being heard to all the parties in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible and in any case before 30/6/2011. Parties to appear before Respondent No. 4 on 31/3/2011 at 3.00p.m.

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.