Bombay High Court

PRAVIN NATWARLAL VEPARI THR POA JEEVAN P GAIKWAD AND ANRversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR ADDL CHIEF SEC.REVENUE AND FOREST DEPT. AND ORS

Decided: 1 October 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Court held that, due to non‑compliance with the procedural requirements of Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, the petitions cannot be entertained and must be referred to the State‑constituted Committee for consideration.

Summary

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 Section 35(1) issued, echoing its earlier rulings in Rohan Vijay Nahar and in Writ Petition No.1536 of 2017. Relying on the precedent set in Shraddha Dinesh Kad v. State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition No.8131 of 2024), the Court held that the lack of statutory compliance barred the mutation entries. Consequently, the Court declined to entertain the petitions directly and directed that the matters be referred to a Committee constituted by the State Government for a decision within three months. Both writ petitions were therefore disposed of.

Issues considered

Whether the statutory notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act was served and the subsequent notification under Section 35(1) made.
Whether the mutation entries can be set aside for non‑compliance with Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act.
Whether the principles laid down in Rohan Vijay Nahar and Writ Petition No.1536 of 2017 are applicable to the present petitions.

Legislation cited

Indian Forest Act, 1927 — s. 35(1), 35(3)

Subjects

Indian Forest Act
Section 35
mutation entry
forest land
procedural compliance
writ petition
state government committee

Judgment

Digitally
signed by
NISHA 908-wp.11618&11663.2026.doc
NISHA SANDEEP
SANDEEP CHITNIS
CHITNIS Date:
2026.10.03 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
13:42:32
+0530
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.11618 OF 2026

Jetu Jacques Taru Lalvani
through his Authorised Power of
Attorney Holder – Rajesh Kewalkishan Khanna ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.11663 OF 2026

Pravin Natwarlal Vepari and Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents

Mr. Chaitanya Charan i/b Mr. Prithviraj S. Gole for the Petitioners in
both the petitions.

Mr. P. P. Kakade, Addl.G.P. with Mr. M. M. Pable, A.G.P. for the
Respondent-State in WP/11618/2026.

Mr. P. P. Kakade, Addl.G.P. with Mr. Karan S. Thorat, ‘B’ Panel
Counsel, for the Respondent-State in WP/11663/2026.

CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.

DATE : 1st OCTOBER 2026

P.C. :

1. We had directed the learned Addl. G.P. to take instructions.

The learned Addl. G.P. has taken instructions. The learned Addl. G.P.

N. S. Chitnis 1/5
908-wp.11618&11663.2026.doc

concedes to the fact that both the Writ Petitions would be covered by

the decision in the case of Rohan Vijay Nahar and Others v/s State of

Maharashtra and Others1, as well as the decision of this Court in

bunch of Writ Petitions, the lead Petition being Writ Petition No.1536

of 2017, decided on 23rd July 2026, as neither the process under

Section 35(3) nor that under Section 35(1) of the Indian Forest Act has

been followed.

2. Two Writ Petitions are listed before us. The first petition,

being Writ Petition No.11618 of 2026, has been filed by Jetu Jacques

Taru Lalvani. We find that it involves the impugned Mutation Entry

No.675 in respect of Village Pale, Taluka Maval, District Pune. The

learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently relied upon a

Judgment delivered by this Court in Writ Petition No.8131 of 2024, in

the case of Shraddha Dinesh Kad and Others v/s State of Maharashtra

and Others, decided on 16th February 2026, which had the

involvement of the very same Mutation Entry, in regards to the land,

Gut No.143, at Village Pale, Taluka Maval, District - Pune. Upon
1 (2026) 2 SCC 182

N. S. Chitnis 2/5
908-wp.11618&11663.2026.doc

appreciating the law laid down in this regard, and noting that there

was no proof of service available to establish that the notice under

Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act had been served and that the

proceedings had culminated in a Notification under Section 35(1), the

Writ Petition was allowed.

3. We find that the present case falls within the ambit of our

Judgment dated 16th February 2026 delivered in Writ Petition No.8131

of 2024.

4. The other Writ Petition, being Writ Petition No.11663 of

2026, is also listed along with the present petition, where the

petitioners’ land is situated in Village Apti, Taluka Maval, District –

Pune, which is distant than the village which was involved in Writ

Petition No.8131 of 2024.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners is justified in

submitting that the principle of law laid down by this Court in a bunch

N. S. Chitnis 3/5
908-wp.11618&11663.2026.doc

of Writ Petitions, the lead Petition being Writ Petition No.1536 of

2017, decided on 23rd July 2026, based upon the decision of the Apex

Court in the Rohan Vijay Nahar (Supra), is applicable to both the

cases, as there has been no compliance with the provisions of Section

35 of the Indian Forest Act. However, since we have already disposed

of a group of petitions and had refrained ourselves from examining

each and every case individually, and upon a suggestion being made to

the State Government, the Government has issued a Resolution

constituting a Committee for examining such claims, we deem it

appropriate to relegate the petitioners in both these Writ Petitions to

the said Committee, by following the appropriate procedure.

In fact, in our order, we have directed that the petitions

themselves shall be treated as representations/applications by the

concerned Forest Officer and shall be placed before the State

Government for consideration, and a decision shall be taken by

applying the law which has already been crystallized in this regard by

the Apex Court in Rohan Vijay Nahar (Supra), as well as by this Court

in Writ Petition No.1536 of 2017, decided on 23 rd July 2026.

N. S. Chitnis 4/5
908-wp.11618&11663.2026.doc

We expect the Committee to take an expeditious decision

and, in no case, later than three months from today.

Both the Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of.

ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J. BHARATI DANGRE, J.

N. S. Chitnis 5/5

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

Chaitanya Charan