Supreme Court Outdated Forest Notices Can’t Trigger Land Vesting Under Maharashtra Act

A large batch of 96 civil appeals arose from a 2018 Bombay High Court judgment that had upheld the State of Maharashtra’s claim that certain private lands were vested as forests under the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 (“MPFA”). The landowners challenged revenue mutations marking their lands as “private forests,” arguing that these actions were based solely on Gazette notices purportedly issued under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (“IFA”) during the 1960s. They contended that no personal service of such notices was ever made, no inquiries were held, and no final notifications were issuedSection 35(1) under  of the IFA. For decades, the lands were treated as private holdings, developed with permissions, and remained in the owners’ possession without compensation or acquisition proceedings.

HC Held: The High Court nevertheless dismissed the writ petitions, treating the Gazette publications as sufficient proof of notice and holding that vesting occurred automatically under Section 3 of the MPFA from the appointed day. It reasoned that subsequent purchasers could not question vesting and upheld revenue mutations as ministerial reflections of statutory outcomes. The petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue Raised: Whether lands can be deemed to have vested in the State under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 solely on the basis of an unserved or outdated notice allegedly issued under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.

SC Held: The Supreme Court held that for vesting to occur under Section 3 of the MPFA, a notice under Section 35(3) of the IFA must not only be issued but also duly served on the landholder. Mere publication in the Gazette without service or follow-up proceedings does not meet the statutory requirements. The Court found that in all the present cases, there was no evidence of service of such notices, no final notifications under Section 35(1), no possession taken under Section 5 of the MPFA, and no compensation proceedings initiated. The so-called possession papers relied on by the State were found unverified and unreliable, while private ownership and possession continued uninterrupted for decades.

The Court held that the High Court’s approach amounted to a clear disregard of binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution. It reaffirmed Godrej & Boyce as the controlling authority and stated that judicial discipline obliges High Courts to apply Supreme Court law strictly. It criticized the High Court for misreading Gazette publications and treating ministerial revenue entries as proof of acquisition. The Supreme Court thereby quashed the decision of HC and allowed all appeals, set aside the forest-related entries and mutations, and ordered their correction in the revenue records. It granted the State the liberty to initiate fresh proceedings only in accordance with law and due process.

To Read Full Judgment, Download PDF Given Below