Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
132 judgments · newest first · showing 1–132
The applicant, owner of a truck, was found transporting wooden logs exceeding the permitted quantity, bearing a forest department seal, and was charged under several provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and Maharashtra Forest Rules, 2014. He applied for anticipatory bail, arguing that his role …
The petitioners, Ravindra Jayawantrao Shinde and another, challenged the mutation of their land as ‘Private Forests’ alleging that the procedure under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was not followed. The Bombay High Court, recalling its earlier directions in Writ Petition No.1536 of 2017 …
The petitioners, Russell Francis Dmello and an associate, filed a writ petition challenging Mutation Entry No.139 concerning lands bearing Gat No.38 in Village Pangloli, Taluka Maval, District Pune. They contended that the same mutation entry had been the subject of an earlier judgment (WP …
The petitioners challenged mutation entries for land in Pune district, alleging that the State of Maharashtra had failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act. The Court noted that no notice under Section 35(3) had been served nor a notification under …
The petitioner filed a public interest litigation seeking a court order to remove illegal encroachments on Plot No.424, recorded as forest land in Jaunpur district. The respondents argued that the petition was not maintainable because the petitioner had not approached the appropriate forest …
The petitioners challenged the mutation of their lands as ‘Private Forests’ alleging that the procedure under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was not followed. The High Court, recalling its earlier directions in Writ Petition No.1536 of 2017 and Writ Petition No.5344 of 2026, ordered that …
The petitioners challenged the mutation of their lands to ‘Private Forest’ without compliance with Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The High Court, recalling its earlier directions in Writ Petition No.1536 of 2017 and Writ Petition No.5344/2026, ordered that the petitioners be allowed to …
Smt. Asha Pravin Agarwal purchased Plot No.5 in Raigad and later faced possession by the Forest Department after notices under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The Collector declared the land a private forest and vested it in the State, an order affirmed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in 2008 …
The Bombay High Court heard a series of writ petitions filed by several landowners who alleged that their lands had been erroneously mutated as ‘Private Forest’ without compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The petitioners sought relief directing …
The Bombay High Court heard a series of writ petitions filed by several landowners who alleged that their lands had been erroneously mutated as ‘Private Forest’ without compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The petitioners sought relief directing …
The Bombay High Court heard a series of writ petitions filed by several landowners who alleged that their lands had been erroneously mutated as ‘Private Forest’ without compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The petitioners sought relief directing …
The Bombay High Court heard a series of writ petitions filed by several landowners who alleged that their lands had been erroneously mutated as ‘Private Forest’ without compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The petitioners sought relief directing …
The Bombay High Court heard a series of writ petitions filed by several landowners who alleged that their lands had been erroneously mutated as ‘Private Forest’ without compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The petitioners sought relief directing …
The Bombay High Court heard a series of writ petitions filed by several landowners who alleged that their lands had been erroneously mutated as ‘Private Forest’ without compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The petitioners sought relief directing …
The Bombay High Court heard a series of writ petitions filed by several landowners who alleged that their lands had been erroneously mutated as ‘Private Forest’ without compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The petitioners sought relief directing …
The Bombay High Court heard a series of writ petitions filed by several landowners who alleged that their lands had been erroneously mutated as ‘Private Forest’ without compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The petitioners sought relief directing …
The Bombay High Court heard a series of writ petitions filed by several landowners who alleged that their lands had been erroneously mutated as ‘Private Forest’ without compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The petitioners sought relief directing …
The Bombay High Court heard a series of writ petitions filed by several landowners who alleged that their lands had been erroneously mutated as ‘Private Forest’ without compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The petitioners sought relief directing …
The Bombay High Court heard a series of writ petitions filed by several landowners who alleged that their lands had been erroneously mutated as ‘Private Forest’ without compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The petitioners sought relief directing …
The Bombay High Court heard a series of writ petitions filed by several landowners who alleged that their lands had been erroneously mutated as ‘Private Forest’ without compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The petitioners sought relief directing …
The Bombay High Court heard a series of writ petitions filed by several landowners who alleged that their lands had been erroneously mutated as ‘Private Forest’ without compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The petitioners sought relief directing …
The Bombay High Court heard a series of writ petitions filed by several landowners who alleged that their lands had been erroneously mutated as ‘Private Forest’ without compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The petitioners sought relief directing …
A large number of writ petitions were filed in the Bombay High Court alleging that the petitioners' lands had been wrongly mutated as "Private Forests" without compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The Court, recalling its earlier directions in …
The Bombay High Court heard a series of writ petitions filed by various petitioners alleging that their lands had been erroneously mutated as "Private Forests" without compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The petitioners sought redress and …
The Bombay High Court heard a series of writ petitions filed by various petitioners alleging that their lands had been erroneously mutated as "Private Forests" without compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The petitioners sought redress and …
A large number of writ petitions were filed in the Bombay High Court alleging that the petitioners' lands had been wrongly mutated as "Private Forests" without compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The Court, recalling its earlier directions in …
A large number of writ petitions were filed in the Bombay High Court alleging that the petitioners' lands had been wrongly mutated as "Private Forests" without compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The Court, recalling its earlier directions in …
A large number of writ petitions were filed in the Bombay High Court alleging that the petitioners' lands had been wrongly mutated as "Private Forests" without compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The Court, recalling its earlier directions in …
The Bombay High Court heard a series of writ petitions filed by various petitioners alleging that their lands had been erroneously mutated as "Private Forests" without compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The petitioners sought redress and …
A large number of writ petitions were filed in the Bombay High Court alleging that the petitioners' lands had been wrongly mutated as "Private Forests" without compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The Court, recalling its earlier directions in …
A large number of writ petitions were filed in the Bombay High Court alleging that the petitioners' lands had been wrongly mutated as "Private Forests" without compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The Court, recalling its earlier directions in …
A large number of writ petitions were filed in the Bombay High Court alleging that the petitioners' lands had been wrongly mutated as "Private Forests" without compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The Court, recalling its earlier directions in …
The Bombay High Court heard a series of writ petitions filed by various petitioners alleging that their lands had been erroneously mutated as "Private Forests" without compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The petitioners sought redress and …
A large number of writ petitions were filed in the Bombay High Court alleging that the petitioners' lands had been wrongly mutated as "Private Forests" without compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The Court, recalling its earlier directions in …
A large number of writ petitions were filed in the Bombay High Court alleging that the petitioners' lands had been wrongly mutated as "Private Forests" without compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The Court, recalling its earlier directions in …
The Bombay High Court heard a series of writ petitions filed by various petitioners alleging that their lands had been erroneously mutated as "Private Forests" without compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The petitioners sought redress and …
The Bombay High Court heard a series of writ petitions filed by various petitioners alleging that their lands had been erroneously mutated as "Private Forests" without compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The petitioners sought redress and …
A large number of writ petitions were filed in the Bombay High Court alleging that the petitioners' lands had been wrongly mutated as "Private Forests" without compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The Court, recalling its earlier directions in …
The Bombay High Court heard a series of writ petitions filed by various petitioners alleging that their lands had been erroneously mutated as "Private Forests" without compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The petitioners sought redress and …
A large number of writ petitions were filed in the Bombay High Court alleging that the petitioners' lands had been wrongly mutated as "Private Forests" without compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The Court, recalling its earlier directions in …
A large number of writ petitions were filed in the Bombay High Court alleging that the petitioners' lands had been wrongly mutated as "Private Forests" without compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The Court, recalling its earlier directions in …
The petitioners challenged the mutation of their lands as ‘Private Forest’ alleging that the procedure under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was not followed. The Court, recalling its earlier directions in Writ Petition No.1536 of 2017 and Writ Petition No.5344 of 2026, directed that the …
The Bombay High Court heard a series of writ petitions filed by various petitioners alleging that their lands had been erroneously mutated as "Private Forests" without compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The petitioners sought redress and …
A large number of writ petitions were filed in the Bombay High Court alleging that the petitioners' lands had been wrongly mutated as "Private Forests" without compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The Court, recalling its earlier directions in …
The Bombay High Court heard a series of writ petitions filed by various petitioners alleging that their lands had been erroneously mutated as "Private Forests" without compliance with the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The petitioners sought redress and …
The petitioners, Ujjwala Sambhaji Tamboli and others, alleged that their lands were incorrectly mutated as ‘Private Forest’ without following the procedure prescribed in Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The Court, recalling its earlier directions in Writ Petition No.1536 of 2017 (dated 23 …
The petitioners alleged that their lands had been incorrectly mutated as ‘Private Forest’ without following the procedure prescribed in Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The High Court, recalling its earlier directions in Writ Petition No.1536 of 2017 and Writ Petition No.5344/2026, …
The petitioner, Pawan Radheshyam Gupta, filed a writ petition seeking rectification of Mutation Entry No. 3391 for land bearing Survey No. 148/3 in Asangaon, Thane, alleging that the entry was made with the remark ‘Vane’ and that the procedures under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 were not complied …
The petitioners sought rectification of several mutation entries for land in Vehloli village, alleging that the procedure under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was not followed before the land was declared a private forest. The High Court referred to its recent decision in Director and Anr vs. State of …
The petitioners sought the rectification of Mutation Entry No. 1440 for land at Gat No. 358, Mauje Kondhla, Taluka Wada, Palghar, alleging that the procedure prescribed under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was not followed and that the nomenclature ‘Vane’ should be restored. The High Court, referring …
The petitioners sought to have Mutation Entry No. 3385 for land in Asangaon, Thane, corrected and the nomenclature restored, alleging that the procedure under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was not followed before the land was declared a private forest. The Court referred to its recent decision in …
The petitioners sought rectification of Mutation Entry No. 2545 for land in Village Nadhal, Raigad, alleging that the entry was marked ‘Vane’ and that the procedure under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was not complied with. The High Court referred to its earlier decision in Director and Anr. vs. State …
The High Court considered three writ petitions filed by Alka Suryakant Karale, Bajranglal Richhpal Gupta, and Aziz Esmail Dhariwala challenging the mutation of their lands as ‘Private Forests’ without compliance with Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The petitioners sought redress for …
The petitioners challenged the mutation of their land into "Private Forest" by the Revenue and Forest Department, alleging that the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was not followed. The High Court noted its earlier directions in Writ Petition No.1536 of 2017 and …
The High Court considered three writ petitions filed by Alka Suryakant Karale, Bajranglal Richhpal Gupta, and Aziz Esmail Dhariwala challenging the mutation of their lands as ‘Private Forests’ without compliance with Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The petitioners sought redress for …
The petitioners challenged the mutation of their lands as 'Private Forests' by the Revenue and Forest Department, alleging that the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was not followed. They sought relief directing the authorities to reconsider the mutation and to …
The petitioners challenged the mutation of their lands as 'Private Forests' by the Revenue and Forest Department, alleging that the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was not followed. They sought relief directing the authorities to reconsider the mutation and to …
The petitioners challenged the mutation of their lands as ‘Private Forests’ by the State of Maharashtra, alleging that the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was not followed. The High Court, recalling its earlier directions in Writ Petition No.1536 of 2017 and Writ …
The petitioners challenged the mutation of their lands as ‘Private Forests’ by the State of Maharashtra, alleging that the procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was not followed. They sought relief through a writ petition (No.10475 of 2018) and an interim application …
Several writ petitions were filed challenging the State's handling of private forest lands under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975. The High Court had earlier directed the State to set up a Scrutiny Committee to examine cases for compliance with …
The Bombay High Court heard a large batch of writ petitions concerning the status of private forest lands in Maharashtra. The Court noted that the matters are governed by the Supreme Court decisions in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Rohan Vijay Nahar & Ors. v. State …
The petitioner, Ganesh Brijmohan Pokhriyal, challenged Mutation Entry No. 1180 which recorded the State Government as the occupier of his land in Mulgaon, Ambernath, on the basis of a declaration that the land was a private forest under the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975. The …
The petitioner, Ganesh Brijmohan Pokhriyal, challenged Mutation Entry No. 1180 which recorded the State Government as the occupier of his land in Mulgaon, Ambernath, on the basis of a declaration that the land was a private forest under the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975. The …
The petitioners, Ashivinbhai Laxmanbhai Nayak and others, were arrested on 1 June 2026 for allegedly hunting a protected leopard using clutch wire, violating Sections 26(1)(D) and 26(1)(I) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and multiple provisions of the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. They filed a …
The petitioners challenged Mutation Entry No.616, which recorded the State of Maharashtra as owner of several parcels of land (Gat No.18 Hissa) in Yeoor, Thane, alleging that the entry was made without complying with the procedural requirements of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The State admitted that …
Petitioner Nilu Kumari sought a writ to quash the Collector‑cum‑District Registrar’s order refusing registration of a parcel of land in Gaya, alleging the land is private and that the authority exceeded its jurisdiction. The land, originally recorded as "Bakast Malik" and settled in 1938‑39, later …
The petitioners, seven accused persons, were charged under Sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act read with Sections 27, 29 and 31 of the Wildlife Protection Act for alleged illegal sand mining and assault on forest officials. They applied for anticipatory bail, claiming innocence and that …
The petition filed by Forest Range Officer Anil Kumar Jha under Section 482 Cr.PC sought to set aside a summons issued by the S.D.J.M., Banka, alleging that he assaulted a complainant during a stone transport. The petitioner argued that the alleged act was performed in the discharge of his official …
The petitioners, members of Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers residing in Chakaliya village, claimed forest rights over survey No. 126 under the Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 and Rules, 2007. Their applications, …
The petitioner, Dharmendra Kumar, was accused of operating an illegal sawmill in violation of Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and Sections 5, 10, 13 and 14 of the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990. He applied for anticipatory bail, claiming he was falsely implicated, that the …
Sahdev Manjhi was arrested in connection with Forest P.S. Case No.3 of 2016 for allegedly transporting and intending to sell "Bel" fruit, which is prohibited under a 1953 notification. The offences alleged were under Sections 33, 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, which the petitioner argued …
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging a communication dated 7 June 2022 that rejected his request to lay a pipeline from Lonwade Shivar, citing prohibitions under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The communication was issued by the Forest Range Officer …
The petitioner, Ram Pravesh Mandal, sought bail fearing arrest in a case involving alleged illegal removal of stone chips from a forest, charged under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972. The FIR described a seized tractor allegedly owned by the petitioner, though the …
Shivnath Sharma applied for pre‑arrest bail after an FIR was lodged under Sections 41 and 42 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and several provisions of the Bihar Saw Mills (Regulation) Act, 1990, alleging he operated an illegal saw‑mill. The FIR was based on an anonymous complaint and the seizure of a …
The petitioners, three residents of Rohtas district, were named in an FIR for allegedly cutting trees in violation of Section 33 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (with Bihar Amendment 1989) and for the purpose of confiscation under Section 52. They contended that the FIR was based solely on hearsay, …
The appellants, private landowners in Maharashtra, challenged revenue annotations and mutation entries that labelled their lands as private forests and vested in the State, arguing that the statutory requirements for acquisition were not fulfilled. The State contended that notices issued under …
The Supreme Court examined the status of Zudpi Jungle lands in six districts of Maharashtra, which, although recorded as forest lands, have been used for residential, agricultural, and governmental purposes for decades. The State of Maharashtra sought to treat these lands as non‑forest to avoid the …
The Range Forest Officer alleged that the directors and office bearers of a company illegally uprooted trees using a JCB, violating Section 4 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900, and sought prosecution under Section 19. The Special Environment Court took cognizance of the complaint and issued …
The Supreme Court examined the challenge by the Goa Foundation to the criteria adopted by the State of Goa for identifying private forest land, specifically the canopy density threshold of 0.4 and a minimum area of 5 hectares. The Court traced the historical development of these criteria from the …
The appellants, Bhoomidars, were in possession of land that had been declared a reserved forest under Section 4 of the Forest Act, 1927, leading to an eviction drive by the Forest Department. The Forest Settlement Officer, after hearing the parties, held that the appellants had a rightful claim …
The Court was asked to clarify whether mining could be carried out beyond one kilometre from the boundary of a National Park or Wildlife Sanctuary when the proposed site lies within an Eco‑Sensitive Zone (ESZ). The petitioner argued that his mining lease, granted in 2005, was situated 2.26 km from …
Gali Janardhan Reddy, accused of several serious offences under the IPC, Indian Forest Act and the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, was granted bail by the Supreme Court in 2015 with a condition that he not visit Bellary (Karnataka) and Ananthapuram and Cuddapah (Andhra Pradesh). …
The case concerned several civil appeals and writ petitions challenging National Green Tribunal orders that restrained non‑forest activities on lands in three villages of Faridabad district, Haryana, on the ground that these lands were covered by special orders issued under Section 4 of the Punjab …
The appellant’s truck carrying 17 cow progeny was seized and the driver and others were arrested under the Madhya Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 2004 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960. The trial court acquitted all accused, finding no evidence of intent to slaughter, but …
The petitioner’s 29.38‑acre land in Bihar was initially acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 with a 1981 notification and possession taken, later declared a protected forest. An award was passed in 2006, but the Supreme Court in August 2015 held that the acquisition proceedings had lapsed …
Electrosteel Steels Ltd. obtained environmental clearance (EC) and consent to establish a steel plant at a specified site in Bokaro, but later shifted the plant 5.3 km away, allegedly encroaching forest land. The Ministry of Environment and the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board (JSPCB) revoked …
The Supreme Court examined the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation's (DMRC) request to proceed with Phase‑IV of the Mass Rapid Transit System (MRTS) through areas of the Delhi Ridge, South‑Central and Morphological Ridges, which are either notified forest or deemed forest lands. The petitioners argued that …
The Supreme Court examined whether 162 acres of land in Kasmandi Khurd, Uttar Pradesh, vested in the State under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 and was subsequently declared a reserved forest under the Indian Forest Act, 1927. It held that the Gaon Sabha had no authority to …
The appellants, holders of mining leases in Sonbhadra, Uttar Pradesh, sought extension of their leases for periods during which mining was prohibited by orders of the National Green Tribunal and subsequent state notifications. The State argued that neither the Uttar Pradesh Mining Minerals …
The Hospitality Association of Mudumalai and other private land owners challenged the Tamil Nadu Government's notification of an elephant corridor on the Sigur Plateau, arguing that the corridor was not scientifically justified and that the State lacked statutory authority to create it. The High …
The Union of India sought a direction that the minutes of the 40th meeting of the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) dated 23 April 2019 be placed on record so that the Supreme Court's embargo on the environmental clearance (EC) for the Mopa greenfield airport could be lifted. The Court examined …
The Union Government approved a greenfield international airport at Mopa, Goa, and the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) granted environmental clearance (EC) under the 2006 notification after the Expert Appraisal Committee (EAC) recommended it. Petitioners Hanuman Laxman Aroskar and the …
The State of Madhya Pradesh seized a tractor and trolley used for illegal sand excavation from the Chambal river under Section 52 of the Forest Act, 1927 (as amended by MP Act 25 of 1983) and initiated confiscation proceedings under Section 52(3). The respondent sought interim release of the seized …
The Supreme Court examined whether land in Kant Enclave, notified under the Punjab Land Preservation Act (PLP) on 18 August 1992, should be treated as forest land and thus subject to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. It held that the notification unequivocally designates the area as forest, …
The Supreme Court examined a batch of appeals concerning the levy of transit fees on forest produce under the Indian Forest Act, 1927. It held that crushing stone boulders into grits, marble slabs, limestone, coal and related minerals does not change their character as forest produce, and that the …
In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kallo Bai, the owner of a tractor and trolley used to transport teak without a permit was seized and a confiscation order was made under Section 15 of the Madhya Pradesh Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyam) Adhiniyam, 1969. The lower courts held that confiscation could not occur …
The State of Bihar initiated acquisition of land belonging to M/s. Soorajmull Nagarmull in 1981 under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, taking possession but failing to publish an award. Subsequent notifications in 1995‑96 attempted a fresh acquisition. The High Court held that the 1981 …
Ramgarh Farms and Industries Ltd. held land under a lease dated 25 January 1951, which was later deemed invalid as a tenure holder under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The Uttar Pradesh Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 initially declared 5,446 acres …
The Supreme Court examined whether land in village Karoran, notified under Section 3 of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 and regulated by Sections 4 and 5, automatically qualifies as "forest land" under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The High Court had held that the entire …
The Supreme Court disposed of several interlocutory applications filed by various States seeking greater releases from the Ad‑hoc Compensatory Afforestation Fund Management and Planning Authority (CAMPA). The Court modified its earlier order of July 2009, directing the National CAMPA Advisory …
Godrej & Boyce acquired a 133-acre parcel in Vikhroli, which was declared waste land and cultivated before 1951. The State later issued a show‑cause notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (notice No. WT/53) in 1956‑57, but never served it or took possession, while repeatedly …
The appellants, heirs of a zamindar, challenged a Gazette notification under Section 4‑A of the Kumaun and Uttarakhand Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1960 (KUZALR Act) that vested their 1,600 acres of forest land in the State on 1 January 1978. They argued that the vesting was …
The Supreme Court examined contempt applications arising from the appellants' (Krishnadevi Malchand Kamathia & Ors.) alleged violation of a conditional order permitting them to repair an old bund on land classified as CRZ‑1 and notified as a reserve forest. The Court found that the appellants, under …
The Supreme Court examined whether a 53‑acre portion of Survey No. 345‑A in Dahisar was a "private forest" under the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 on the appointed day of 30 August 1975, and whether the State’s acquisition of that land was proportionate and lawful. The Court …
Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., a subsidiary of Coal India Ltd., sought relief from an order of the Orissa High Court directing payment of compensation for lands acquired in 1987 under the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act, 1957. The lands, belonging to tribal owners, had never been …
The appellant, Mohd. Ashique, owned a truck that was confiscated by Maharashtra forest officials under Section 61A of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 for allegedly transporting illicitly felled timber. He challenged the confiscation, claiming he had no knowledge of any alterations in the transit passes …
The State seized a Maruti van loaded with hand‑sawn timber and, under s.59A of the Indian Forest Act, ordered its confiscation. The owner claimed the vehicle was lent to a friend and that he had no knowledge of the illegal timber. The High Court released the vehicle, holding that without proof of …
The appellant, an Assistant Mill Manager (AMM) in the Andaman & Nicobar Forest Department, sought promotion to Deputy Conservator of Forests (DCF) by claiming his post was equivalent to Assistant Conservator of Forest (ACF) and thus a feeder post under the Indian Forest Service (Appointment by …
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and possession of land against the Divisional Forest Officer and the State of Bihar. After the suit proceeded to trial, several third parties (defendants 3‑17) intervened, later amended their written statements and were treated by the trial court …
The Supreme Court examined a public‑interest litigation filed by Deepak Agarwal challenging the lease of about 15 hectares of land to Maruti Clean Coal and Power Ltd for a coal‑washery, alleging that the land was forest land under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. The Court first assessed the …
The petition sought directions on whether user agencies diverting forest land for non‑forest purposes must compensate by paying the Net Present Value (NPV) of the lost forest benefits and what guidelines should govern NPV calculation. The Court examined the statutory framework of the Forest …
The case concerned the allotment of industrial plots in Chandigarh under the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 and the 1973 Lease‑Hold Rules. Of 339 shortlisted allottees, 254 could not be given possession because much of the land was declared a reserved forest and fell within …
The State of Madhya Pradesh seized stocks of kattha and cutch from S.P. Sales Agencies for moving them without a transit pass under the Madhya Pradesh Transit (Forest Produce) Rules, 1961, and initiated confiscation proceedings under Section 52 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The High Court quashed …
The State seized a truck carrying forest produce without a transit permit and initiated confiscation proceedings under the West Bengal amendments to the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The District Judge set aside the confiscation order on the ground that the notice under Section 59‑B was invalid, …
The State of Bihar appealed against High Court orders that quashed confiscation of trucks seized with illicit forest produce, arguing that the Bihar Forest Produce (Regulation of Trade) Act, 1984 does not strip the authorities of powers conferred by the Indian Forest Act, 1927 as amended by the …
The State of Uttar Pradesh challenged the validity of the transit fee imposed under Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Transit of Timber and Other Forest Produce Rules, 1978, arguing that the fee was invalid because it was not supported by a quid pro quo. The Allahabad High Court upheld the constitutional …
C.G. Velkar, a private forest land holder, challenged the vesting of his 20‑hectare land in Versave village in the State of Maharashtra under the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975. The dispute centered on whether the word "issue" in Section 2(f)(iii) of the Act required actual …
The State of Madhya Pradesh acquired forest land under Section 16 of the Indian Forest Act and, in lieu of compensation, transferred the land to the respondents. The respondents later sued for a declaration of title and compensation, and the Conservator of Forest colluded with them to obtain a …
The State of Tripura appealed against a Gauhati High Court decision that declared Rule 3 of its Transit Rules illegal. Rule 3 imposed licence and application fees, required licences for removal of timber and firewood, allowed the State to prohibit export of forest produce, and levied an export duty …
The truck bearing No. 9493 was seized by a Divisional Forest Officer for carrying 22 logs of timber without a permit under the Madhya Pradesh Ven Upaj Vyapar Viniyaman Act, 1969. The driver compounded the offence by paying Rs.1,000, but the truck was not released because its value was not paid, …
Suresh Lohia's bamboo mat was confiscated by forest authorities as alleged forest‑produce. The Additional Sessions Judge ordered its release, but the Bombay High Court reversed, holding the mat to be forest‑produce under the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Lohia appealed to the Supreme Court, contending …
The State of Bihar issued 1983 rules requiring owners of saw‑pits and timber depots to obtain licences, invoking powers under sections 41, 42 and 76 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The Patna High Court held that the statutes did not empower such regulation and set aside the rules. The State …
The State of Uttar Pradesh issued a notification under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 declaring 22.11 acres of land a reserved forest. The respondents, recorded as Sirdari holders, claimed they had acquired ownership under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and …
The Supreme Court, hearing a public‑interest writ filed by Banwasi Seva Ashram on behalf of Adivasi land‑owners displaced by the Rihand Super‑Thermal Power Project of NTPC, reviewed the rehabilitation measures ordered in 1986 and issued a final order in 1992. The Court directed NTPC, in …
The plaintiffs, jagirdars of village Nalej, sold teak and mahuda trees to a contractor. The land was declared a reserved forest under the forest rules of the erstwhile Chhota Udepur State, and later brought under the Indian Forest Act by Gujarat. The contractor sought permission to fell the trees, …
The Banwasi Seva Ashram filed a writ petition under Article 32 challenging the eviction of its members from areas declared reserve forest under Section 20 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The Supreme Court had earlier appointed commissioners to prepare land records, identify forest land and decide …
The contractors, Orient Paper and Straw Products, had exclusive licences to cut bamboo in government forests under contracts that were to expire in September 1989. The Orissa Forest Produce (Control of Trade) Act, 1981 and its subsequent amendments (1987 and 1989) together with notifications dated …
The appellant, the second son of the former Raja of Bushahr, claimed ownership of about 1,720 acres of forest land based on a 1942 patta and subsequent grants by his father, the Raja. The State argued that the 1942 lease of the forests to the Punjab Government divested the Raja of any right to grant …
The Supreme Court entertained a public‑interest writ filed by Rural Litigation & Entitlement Kendra alleging illegal limestone mining in the Mussoorie‑Dehradun belt that was harming the ecology and forest cover. Several expert committees (Bhargava, Working Group, Bandyopadhyay) classified the mines …
The Supreme Court heard a petition filed by Banwasi Seva Ashram on behalf of Adivasis living in Dudhi and Robertsganj tehsils of Mirzapur district, who claimed possession of forest lands that the State of Uttar Pradesh had declared as reserved forest under sections 20 and 4 of the Indian Forest Act, …
The petitioners, nomadic graziers from Gujarat and Rajasthan, challenged a Madhya Pradesh notification that imposed higher grazing charges on "foreign cattle" (cattle owned by persons from other states), prescribed a specific transit route, and limited the period of transit to 45 days. They argued …
The petitioners, former proprietary jagirdars of Idar State, claimed that after the Bombay Merged Territories and Areas (Jagirs Abolition) Act, 1953 they became occupants of their lands and were therefore entitled to the forest trees standing there. The High Court had held that, because no survey …
