Bombay High Court
MILKEENA RAHUL JAIN AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU SECRETARY AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The mutation of land as 'Private Forest' without following Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 is invalid, and the petitioners must be permitted to make a representation before the Scrutiny Committee.
Summary
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 provide an opportunity to be heard. The Court, recalling its earlier directions in Writ Petition No.1536 of 2017 and Writ Petition No.5344 of 2026, ordered that the petitioners be allowed to file a representation before the Deputy Conservator of Forests. The representation is to be placed before a Scrutiny Committee constituted under the Government Resolution dated 13th August 2026, which is mandated to adjudicate such grievances expeditiously. The Court held that the procedural safeguards under the Forest Act must be observed to protect the petitioners' land rights. Accordingly, the petitions were disposed of after the directions were issued.
Issues considered
- Whether the mutation of land as 'Private Forest' without compliance with Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 is valid.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to a representation before the Deputy Conservator of Forests and a Scrutiny Committee for redressal.
Legislation cited
- Indian Forest Act, 1927 — s. 35
Subjects
- land mutation
- private forest
- Indian Forest Act
- representation
- scrutiny committee
- environment law
- public interest litigation
Judgment
NISHA Digitally signed by
NISHA SANDEEP
SANDEEP CHITNIS
Date: 2026.09.03
CHITNIS 12:51:06 +0530 11&12-wp.11281&82.2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.11281 OF 2026
Milkeena Rahul Jain and Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.11282 OF 2026
Vasudev Mahadev Gaikwad and Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Atharva R. B. i/b Mr. Swapnil Telang for the Petitioners in both
the petitions.
Mr. Karan Thorat, ‘B’ Panel Counsel for the Respondent-State.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.
DATE : 31st AUGUST 2026
P.C. :
1. In the wake of the directions issued by us in a bunch of
Writ Petitions, the lead Petition being Writ Petition No.1536 of 2017,
decided on 23rd July 2026, as well the directions issued in Writ Petition
No.5344 of 2026 decided on 24 th August 2026, we deem it
N. S. Chitnis 1/2
11&12-wp.11281&82.2026.doc
appropriate to permit the petitioners to prefer a representation to the
Deputy Conservator of Forests and permit the petitions to be treated
as a representation to be placed before the Scrutiny Committee which
shall follow the mandate as set out in the Government Resolution
dated 13th August 2026, issued by the Revenue and Forest Department,
streamlining for redressal of grievance of those who claim that their
lands have been wrongly mutated as ‘Private Forests’ without
following the procedure laid down in Section 35 of the Indian Forest
Act, 1927.
All the proceedings shall be adjudicated by the Scrutiny
Committee in expeditious manner.
With the aforesaid directions, both the writ petitions stand
disposed of.
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J. BHARATI DANGRE, J.
N. S. Chitnis 2/2
Checking your session…