1 907-908-WP-4807-2026 (C) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION (907) WRIT PETITION NO. 4807 OF 2026 Krushna Bhagu Kale …...Petitioner Vs. The State Of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary Tribal Development Dept. & Ors. .…...Respondents AND (908) WRIT PETITION NO. 4808 OF 2026 Baban Dhondiba Hogade …...Petitioner Vs. The State Of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary Tribal Development Dept. & Ors. .…...Respondents ….. Mr. Vishwanath Talkute with Mr. Nitin Nikam, Mr. Mahesh Bhosale i/b Mr. Harsh Khot Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. J. P. Patil, AGP for Respondent-State. ….. CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J. DATE : 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2026. ORDER : . Heard both sides finally. 2. The Petitioners are aggrieved by the common impugned order dated 24.07.2026 passed by the District Level Forest Rights Committee, relying upon the minutes of the meeting held on 24.07.2026. 3. It is contended that the Petitioners are residents of a place 2 907-908-WP-4807-2026 (C) situated within the forest area at Mahabaleshwar, District Satara. They have been residing there since several generations, and there is evidence to that effect. They are seeking regularization of their possession over the land bearing Survey/Gut No. 103 in the case of Petitioner Mr. Krushna Kale and others and Gut No. 223 in the case of Petitioner Baban Hogade. 4. It is further contended that their claims were approved by the Gram Sabha and recommended by the Sub-Divisional Officer. However, the District Level Committee and, resultantly, the learned Collector, being its President, denied the right for want of reliable evidence of their occupation for 75 years, by the impugned orders. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners has adverted my attention, in the case of Writ Petition No. 4807 of 2026, to the proforma indicating that there was a birth certificate dated 13.04.1932 of the ancestor, along with various statements, Panchanama and other documents, which are overlooked by the District Level Committee. 6. In the case of Writ Petition No. 4808 of 2026, my attention is adverted to the proforma prepared by the Sub-Divisional Officer, indicating the existence of a birth certificate dated 15.09.1929, 3 907-908-WP-4807-2026 (C) Panchanama, affidavits, and the judgment in Criminal Summary Case No. 509 of 1966, recording the encroachment of the Petitioner for the last 25 years, which are overlooked by the Committee. 7. It is further contended by the learned counsel, Mr. Vishwanath Talkute, that the constitution of the District Level Committee is not in accordance with the Rules of 2007. 8. Learned A.G.P. would submit that the competent authority has taken the decision considering the material on record. Disputed questions of fact have been raised in the Petitions. Hence, the Petitions are liable to be rejected. 9. The constitution of the Committee is prescribed by Rule 7 of the Rules of 2006. It is orally submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners that all the members of the Committee were male. It does not appear from the minutes of the meeting dated 24.07.2026 as well as the impugned orders as to what was the constitution of the Committee. However, as per the statutory mandate, the District Level Committee has to be constituted in consonance with Rule 7. The claims of the tribal and others alleged to have encroached upon forest land need to be dealt with by a duly constituted Committee. 4 907-908-WP-4807-2026 (C) 10. I have gone through the minutes of the meeting dated 24.07.2026, in which the claims of about 20 persons are dealt with In paragraph No. 7, the claims of both the Petitioners are dealt with in a cursory manner, without adverting to the documents placed by them before the Committee. Neither is there any objective scrutiny nor are any specific reasons recorded for rejecting the claims. The documents produced by them have been overlooked. The impugned orders dated 24.07.2026 passed by the Collector are also cryptic and lack reasons. Thus, they are not sustainable in law. 11. The Petitioners have produced old records, which include birth certificates, affidavits, judgments in criminal proceedings and other relevant documents. Their claims were recommended by the Taluka Level Committee. Under these circumstances, the District Level Committee was bound to deal with the material produced by them in support of their claims. It is a fit case to remand the matter to the District Level Committee for adjudication of the claims afresh. 12. It is further pointed out by Mr. Talkute, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, that an opportunity of hearing was not given to the Petitioners before deciding their claims, which is mandated by Section 6 of the Forest Rights Act, 2006. The valuable 5 907-908-WP-4807-2026 (C) rights of the parties are at stake and, therefore, the Committee is obliged to extend an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioners. 13. Both the Petitions are partly allowed. a. The impugned orders passed by the Collector, founded on the minutes of the meeting dated 24.07.2026, are quashed and set aside to the extent of the Petitioners only. b. The matter is relegated to the District Level Committee for deciding the Petitioners' claims afresh, after extending an opportunity of hearing to them, on their own merits. c. The decision shall be taken within a period of six weeks on its own merits. d. No coercive action shall be taken against the Petitioners qua the land occupied by them till the decision of the Committee. e. The parties shall appear before the Committee on 05.10.2026. [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME J. ] Suresh