Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-005454-005454 – 2019 |
| Diary Number | 47500/2018 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH |
| Bench |
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all courts in India |
| Overrules / Affirms |
Overrules Bombay High Court (27.09.2018) – dismissal of writ petitions; Affirms Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2014 3 SCC 430) |
| Type of Law | Statutory interpretation – Indian Forest Act, 1927; Maharashtra Private Forests Acquisition Act, 1975 |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon | Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2014 3 SCC 430) (overruling Oberoi Constructions (2008 Bom 311)) |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Landowners alleged notices under IFA §35(3) in the 1960s were never personally served, no objections inquiry or final notification under IFA §35(1) occurred, possession remained private, and decades-later revenue mutations described lands as “private forest” and vested in the State. High Court dismissed writs. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All courts and authorities in India |
| Persuasive For | High Courts faced with forest-land vesting disputes |
| Overrules | Bombay High Court’s judgment dated 27.09.2018 in Rohan Vijay Nahar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. |
| Follows | Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2014 3 SCC 430) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The term “a notice has been issued” under MPFA §2(f)(iii) necessarily includes due personal service under IFA §35(5).
- Stale or unserved IFA §35(3) notices lapse into desuetude and cannot support vesting under MPFA §3(1).
- Ministerial revenue mutations cannot cure the absence of mandatory steps (service, hearing, final notification, possession under MPFA §5).
- Subsequent purchasers have the same right to challenge defective vesting as original landholders.
- High Courts must apply the Godrej & Boyce ratio uniformly; attempts to read it down on immaterial factual differences violate Article 141.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Statutory Scheme Requires Service and Hearing: IFA §35(3) invites objections; §35(5) mandates personal service and Gazette publication; §35(1) orders follow a hearing. MPFA §2(f)(iii)’s reference to “a notice has been issued” imports these service and hearing requirements.
- Live Pipeline Notices Only: Only notices pursued to a final IFA §35(1) notification or “live” process near 30.08.1975 can support vesting. Notices left dormant for decades lapse and cannot be revived.
- Strict Construction of Expropriatory Statute: MPFA §3(1) vests only after mandatory steps: §2(f)(iii) notice+service, IFA hearing/notification, MPFA §5 possession, §7 compensation. Absence of any step defeats vesting; revenue mutations are ministerial and do not ensure vesting.
- Binding Precedent and Stare Decisis: Godrej & Boyce (2014 3 SCC 430) clarified these principles and overruled earlier Oberoi Constructions. Bombay HC’s impugned judgment resisted binding authority by seeking immaterial distinctions; this is impermissible under Article 141.
- No Remand for Section 6 Inquiry: A post-facto inquiry is futile after half a century and cannot cure jurisdictional defects.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Landowners):
- Notices under IFA §35(3) were never personally served as required by §35(5).
- No objections inquiry or final notification under IFA §35(1) took place.
- Possession never taken under MPFA §5; compensation under §7 never paid.
- Stale/inchoate notices cannot vest private land; mutations breach MLRC.
Respondent (State):
- Notices under IFA §35(3) were issued and served; Gazette extracts and “Golden Register” prove it.
- MPFA §2(f)(iii)’s inclusive definition triggered vesting on 30.08.1975; mutation entries merely reflect that vesting.
- Subsequent purchasers cannot challenge foundational statutory steps.
- High Court PIL directions and departmental orders justify annotations.
Factual Background
Private landowners in Maharashtra faced revenue mutations (2001–2006) describing their holdings as “private forests” vested in the State under the MPFA. The State relied on Section 35(3) notices allegedly issued in the 1960s under the Indian Forest Act. Landowners claimed no personal service, no hearing or final notification, and uninterrupted private possession. They filed writ petitions to quash the mutations and seek declaratory relief, but the Bombay High Court refused interference on 27.09.2018.
Statutory Analysis
Indian Forest Act, 1927 (IFA)
- §34A inclusive definition of “forest.”
- §35(3) show-cause notice; §35(4) interim restraint; §35(5) personal service & Gazette publication; §35(1) final notification; §35(7) penalties.
Maharashtra Private Forests Acquisition Act, 1975 (MPFA)
- §2(f)(iii) defines “private forest” to include lands where “a notice has been issued” under IFA §35(3).
- §3(1) vests all private forests in the State on appointed day (30.08.1975) free of encumbrances; §3(2) limited savings for small cultivated plots.
- §5 authorises State to take possession; §6–§7 govern enquiry and compensation; §22A re-enacts IFA provisions for restoration in limited cases.
Constitutional Context
- Article 300-A protects property.
- Article 141 makes Supreme Court law binding.
- Article 144 obliges compliance by all authorities.
Alert Indicators
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent: Overrules Bombay High Court’s selective reading and revives binding ratio in Godrej & Boyce.
- ✔ Precedent Followed: Affirms Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2014 3 SCC 430).