and the annexures Exhibit-J to the report record the Gut Numbers along side which or within which, excavation of Murum was carried out. Para 6.3 of the report highlights that excavation of Murum was also carried out in the areas notified as the sanctuary – an activity which was impermissible and the opinion recorded is that the Tahsildar did not confirm the correctness of the quantity of Murum excavated, the royalty paid, meaning thereby the Tahsildar failed to initiate action under sub-section (7) of Section 48 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. In para 6.4.1 of the report, it is brought out that lands listed in Exhibit-L comprised Gut nos. which will utilize for widening of NH-9 and this was not permissible without obtaining permission from the Supreme Court because of the orders passed by the Supreme Court in WP (Civil) 202/1995. Para 6.5 of the report highlights that the project authority misled the competent authority which granted the environmental clearance under the EI Notification-2006 for the reason it appears that the road was within 100 m of the sanctuary. It also highlights that part road passed through the sanctuary. In view of there being wildlife in the reserved area the report brings out that the authorities under the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 should look into the issue and initiate action by issuing appropriate notices to the project propenance. Violation of The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and the Indian Forest Act 1927 have prima facie been opined in the findings.
