Bombay High Court
SMT. THERESA JOHN D'SOUZA AND ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Land cannot be declared a ‘Private Forest’ and vested in the State unless the notice and hearing procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act is strictly complied with.
Summary
Theresa John D'souza and another, residents of Village‑Chon, filed Writ Petition No.11534 of 2018 seeking relief against the State of Maharashtra’s claim that certain lands had automatically become ‘Private Forests’ and vested in the State. The Court observed that the State’s reliance on a misconstrued interpretation of Section 3 of the Private Forest Act, 1975, ignored the mandatory procedure under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, which requires notice to the landowner and an opportunity to be heard. Supreme Court precedents – Godrej & Boyce (2014) and Rohan Vijay Nahar (2025) – were reiterated, holding that without compliance with the notice‑and‑hearing process, a declaration of private forest cannot stand. The Court directed the State to constitute a committee headed by a Deputy Conservator of Forests to scrutinise all such cases, to issue proper notices, and to correct revenue records where owners’ names were wrongfully removed. Consequently, the petition was made absolute and all related interim applications were disposed of.
Issues considered
- What is the correct procedure for vesting land as ‘Private Forest’ under the Private Forest Act, 1975 and the Indian Forest Act, 1927?
- Does the State’s assertion that land automatically became ‘Private Forest’ on 30‑08‑1975 comply with Supreme Court precedent?
- Are the pending revenue entries and forest notifications valid absent compliance with Section 35 notice requirements?
Legislation cited
- Indian Forest Act — s. 35
- Indian Forest (Control Over Forests and Lands (not belonging to Government (Bombay Area) Rules, 1950)
- Private Forest Act, 1975 — s. 2(f)(i)(ii), 3
Subjects
- Private Forest
- Vesting of land
- Indian Forest Act
- Section 35 notice
- Supreme Court precedent
- Revenue records
- Forest law
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
RUSHIKESH
RUSHIKESH VISHNU
VISHNU PATIL
PATIL Date:
2026.10.01
11:55:25
+0530
1/6 10 WP.11534.2018.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11534 OF 2018
Theresa John D'souza & Anr. .. Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
…
Mr. Vasudeo Gangal, for the Petitioners.
Mr. Karan S. Thorat, ‘B’ Panel Counsel a/w Mr. M. M. Pable,
AGP, for the State.
...
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.
DATE : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C:-
1. The present Writ Petition filed by the two Petitioners,
residents of Village- Chon, was inadvertently not heard with
the group of Writ Petitions which were heard over a period of
about three months and finally adjudicated by the Judgment
dated 23.07.2026. In the said judgment, we dealt with 27
cases of Village- Chon and we have allowed the Writ Petitions
with the following reasoning:
(M) THE CONCLUSION
104 We have clubbed 184 Writ Petitions and on
classifying them into different categories/classes, have
segregated them as above.
Rushikesh
2/6 10 WP.11534.2018.odt
However, we deem it necessary to note that the
exercise undertaken by us in most of the cases was
nothing but applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble
Apex Court as well as this Court governing the vesting
of ‘Private Forest’ in the State, preceded by the
procedure to be followed under Section 35 of the Indian
Forest Act and the Indian Forest (Control Over Forests
and Lands (not belonging to Government (Bombay
Area) Rules, 1950, which has specifically carved out the
procedure as to how the notice shall be issued to the
owner.
It is really unfortunate to note that despite a clear
ruling from the three Judge Bench of the Apex Court as
early as in 2014 and down the line after a decade a
decision being delivered in Rohan Vijay Nahar (supra),
when the Apex Court reiterated its earlier verdict to the
effect that for a declaration that the land vest in the
State Government as ‘Private Forest’ under Section 3 of
the Act of 1975, it is necessary to adhere to the
procedure prescribed viz. issuance of notice to the land
owner, with an opportunity to afford him to show cause
as to why the land shall not be declared as a ‘Forest’
and the objections being raised to be duly considered by
the Committee specifically constituted in this regard/by
an Officer authorized to hear the objections and only
thereafter, a Notification shall be issued under sub-
section (1) of Section 35 of the Forest Act. In absentia,
the deeming effect contemplated under Section 3 of the
Act of 1975 resulting into vesting of ‘Private Forest’ in
the State Government, shall not happen and the attempt
on part of the State, who assume that on 30/08/1975
whichever land was a ‘Forest’ automatically becomes
Rushikesh
3/6 10 WP.11534.2018.odt
‘Private Forest’ and vest in the State Government is a
misconception. The State Government continued to
reel under this misconception for a considerable period
of time and at least for more than a decade and it
repeatedly adopted the same stand when the two
important decisions were delivered, first, in the year
2014 and recently in the year 2025 and we are
surprised to note that even when the law declared in
Godrej and Boyce (supra) is reiterated in Rohan Vijay
Nahar (supra). The State continued with its obstinacy
even today, which is reflected through the Affidavits
filed before us.
It is a different aspect that we have repelled their
contention and did not accept its plea, which is already
put to rest not only by the Apex Court, but before
various Division Benches of this Court, when it was
categorically ruled that it is necessary to follow the
procedure prescribed under Section 35 of the Indian
Forest Act before a forest is declared as a ‘Private
Forest’ and it is brought within the purview of Section
2(f)(i)(ii) of the Private Forest Act, 1975 and deemed
to have been acquired and vested in the State
Government, free from all encumbrances.
105 It is a matter of serious concern that despite the
clear pronouncement from the Apex Court, the State
Government is persistent in its stand and during the
course of hearing of the Petitions, on one occasion when
the learned Advocate General for the State, Dr. Milind
Sathe was present, we apprised him of the volume of
work that is lying in this Court because of the defiant
approach of the State Government, as it is not ready to
still accept the law laid down by the highest Court of this
Rushikesh
4/6 10 WP.11534.2018.odt
country.
We are conscious of the fact that by virtue of
Article 141 of the Constitution of India, the law declared
by the Supreme Court bind all the Courts within the
territory of India, but we only want to remind the State
Government of yet another significant article in the
Constitution viz. Article 144, which provide that all
authorities Civil and Judicial, in the territory of India
shall act in aid of the Supreme Court.
We only, therefore, hope and trust that the State
Government shall follow the mandate laid down by the
Apex Court and we must also express that though we do
not take pleasure in summoning the Officers of the State
Government before us and once the law has been laid
down we expect the same to be followed by one and all,
as no one is above law, and particularly when it is laid
down by the highest Court of this Country and if it is not
complied with, the Courts are not powerless to take
cognizance of its breach.
106 We must express that, now once again we have not
laid down any position of law, but have only followed the
principle that has been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in Godrej & Boyce (supra) as well as in the case of
Rohan Vijay Nahar (supra).
We expect the State Government to follow the same
and it shall take care that we are not burdened with
more cases only because in view of the State
Government, the law is not settled and it is still open for
the Government to expect some novel argument to be
canvassed.
107 To make things simple and effortless, we expect the
State Government to constitute a Committee to
Rushikesh
5/6 10 WP.11534.2018.odt
scrutinize all such cases which according to the State
Government involve the issue of ‘Private Forest’ under
the Act of 1975, covering the aspect of vesting as well as
restoration of the land and before the Petitioners
approach this Court, we expect the Committee under
the aegis of an Officer not lower than the rank of the
Deputy Conservator of Forest to scrutinize the matters.
This we say so because once the parameters are
laid down by the Apex Court, the facts of the cases are
to be fitted into those parameters and a solution has to
be arrived at.
It is high time that the State Government should
be conscious of the fact that, if a flaw lies at its end, as
there is no service of notice under Section 35(3) upon
the owners in the manner prescribed and there is no
Notification published under Section 35(1) or even
when the Notification is published without adhering to
the procedure, there can be no declaration about any
land to be ‘Private Forest’ and there is no question of the
name of the State Government being mutated in the
Land Records.
We also direct the State Government to scrutinize
all such cases which are pending before it and if they fall
within the principle of law laid down to the aforesaid
effect, then appropriate directions shall be issued to the
Revenue Department to correct the Revenue entries by
restoring the name of owners/occupiers.
108 We request the learned Advocate General Dr.Milind
Sathe to apprise the Higher-ups in the State
Government, particularly involving the Revenue and
Forest Department, to take such necessary steps so that
we are not called upon to decide upon the said issue,
Rushikesh
6/6 10 WP.11534.2018.odt
which once and for all is put to rest by us.
109 In the wake of the aforesaid, all the Writ Petitions
before us are disposed of in the manner indicated in the
Judgment.
No order as to cost.
In the wake of disposal of Writ Petitions, pending
Interim Applications also stand disposed of.
2. Learned counsel, Mr. Gangal, makes a specific statement
before us that the Writ Petition is governed by the said
observation of the Division Bench, but since this Writ Petition
was dismissed for want of prosecution, it was not tagged
alongwith the other Writ Petitions of Village- Chon.
Upon an Interim Application being filed, the Writ Petition
was restored to its file and the condition of deposit of cost of
Rs.10,000/- has also been complied with.
The learned Government Advocate does not dispute that
the facts in the Writ Petition are identical to the ones
pertaining to Village- Chon and in regard to which the issue
has been put to rest by judgment dated 23.07.2026.
In the wake of the aforesaid, the Writ Petition is made
absolute in terms of prayer clause (a) and (d), for the reasons
recorded in the judgment dated 23.07.2026.
(ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
Rushikesh
Checking your session…