Bombay High Court
Vidya Vinayak DondeversusState of Maharashtra Through the Principal Secretary Revenue and Forest Department
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The lands are not private forests under the Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975 and Mutation Entry No.616 is therefore cancelled, with prior entries in the Record of Rights to be restored.
Summary
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 no notice under Section 35(3) was proven to have been served and no notification under Section 35(1) was issued. Relying on the earlier decision in Dr. Arjun Sitaram Nitanwar v. State of Maharashtra (2015) and the principles laid down in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, the Court held that the lands do not qualify as "private forests" under the Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975. Consequently, the mutation entry was declared illegal, cancelled, and the pre‑existing entries in the Record of Rights were ordered to be restored. The Court made no determination on the applicability of the Forests (Conservation) Act, 1980 or on the petitioners' lease rights, and awarded no costs.
Issues considered
- Whether Mutation Entry No.616, recording the State as owner, is valid in view of the procedural requirements of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.
- Whether the lands in question constitute "private forests" under sub‑clause (iii) of Clause (f) of Section 2 of the Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975.
- Whether the State complied with the notice under Section 35(3) and the subsequent notification under Section 35(1) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927.
Legislation cited
- Indian Forest Act, 1927 — s. 35(1), 35(3), 36A
- Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975 — s. 2(f), 3(1)
Subjects
- private forest
- mutation entry
- Indian Forest Act
- Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act
- land rights
- notice service
- forest law
- Bombay High Court
Judgment
Mamta Kale 8-wp-4247-2026 & Other petitions.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 4247 OF 2026
Roselind Pauly and Ors. ...Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra through
Principle Secretary Revenue and Forest
Department and Ors. ...Respondents
with
WRIT PETITION NO. 4248 OF 2026
Vidya Vinayak Donde ...Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra through
Principle Secretary Revenue and Forest
Department and Ors. ...Respondents
Digitally
signed by
MAMTA
with
MAMTA AMAR
AMAR KALE
KALE Date:
2026.05.06
14:24:50
+0530
WRIT PETITION NO. 4249 OF 2026
Vishal Sudhakar Turkar through
Power of Attorney holder Nirmal
Devichand Solanki ...Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra through
Principle Secretary Revenue and Forest
Department and Ors. ...Respondents
with
WRIT PETITION NO. 4251 OF 2026
Mukesh Popatlal Dedhia ...Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra through
page 1 of 13
Mamta Kale 8-wp-4247-2026 & Other petitions.doc
Principle Secretary Revenue and Forest
Department and Ors. ...Respondents
with
WRIT PETITION NO. 4254 OF 2026
Shantilal Dayaram Thakkar ...Petitioner
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra through
Principle Secretary Revenue and Forest
Department and Ors. ...Respondents
----
Mr Amogh Singh, Mr Nikhil Waje, Mr Prem Gada, Mr Vishesh
Srivastav, Mr Adnan Sarang, Mr Anubhav Singh, for the
Petitioners in WP/4247/2026, WP/4249/2026, WP/4251/2026
and WP/4254/2026.
Mr Shreeyash Uday Lalit i/b Mr Prem Gada, for the Petitioner in
WP/4248/2026.
Mr Karan S Thorat, B Panel, for the Respondent / State in
WP/4247/2026.
Mr Asif I Patel, Addl GP a/w Mr M M Pable, AGP, for the
Respondent / State in WP/4248/2026 and WP/4251/2026.
Mr Asif I Patel, Addl GP a/w Mr V R Raje, AGP, for the
Respondent / State in WP/4249/2026.
Mr Asif I Patel, Addl GP a/w Ms S A Prabhune, AGP, for the
Respondent / State in WP/4254/2026.
----
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATED : 28th APRIL, 2026
page 2 of 13
Mamta Kale 8-wp-4247-2026 & Other petitions.doc
JUDGMENT (Per Bharati Dangre, J.) :-
1. The five writ petitions before us involved distinct Gat
numbers, all of which are covered by the Mutation Entry No.616,
when the State Government effected entry of “Maharashtra
Government Reserved Forest” and the petitioners have raised
challenge to the said entry by alleging that the mutation entry
effected is without following the procedure prescribed under the
Indian Forests Act, 1927, and therefore, the entry is liable to be
quashed and set aside.
2. The details of the five petitions along with the
involved Gat numbers are tabulated as under:-
Sr. Writ Details of Land Impugned
No. Petition Mutation
No. Entry
1 4247 of Land bearing Gat No.18 Hissa 616
2026 No.2P admeasuring 4000 Square
Meters, of Village Yeoor, Taluka
and District Thane.
2 4248 of Land bearing Gat No.18 Hissa 616
2026 No.2B admeasuring 10395
Square Meters, of Village Yeoor,
Taluka and District Thane.
3 4249 of Land bearing Gat No.18 Hissa 616
2026 No.2E admeasuring 6396
Square Meters, of Village Yeoor,
Taluka and District Thane.
4 4251 of Land bearing Gat No.18 Hissa 616
page 3 of 13
Mamta Kale 8-wp-4247-2026 & Other petitions.doc
2026 No.2A admeasuring 10396
Square Meters, of Village Yeoor,
Taluka and District Thane.
5 4254 of Land bearing Gat No.18 Hissa 616
2026 No.2M admeasuring 10400
Square Meters, of Village Yeoor,
Taluka and District Thane.
3. The learned Counsel Mr Singh representing the
petitioners has placed reliance upon the decision delivered by the
Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Arjun Sitaram Nitanwar Vs.
State of Maharashtra decided on 3 February 2015.1
According to him, the said petition was filed by the
petitioners, with the involvement of Gat Nos.7/1, 7/2, 7/3 and 7/6
at Village Yeoor, Taluka and District Thane, and a grievance was
made when the State Government by Mutation Entry No. 616
recorded the name of the Government in the Kabjedar Column,
the entry being effected on 23 May 2006.
By invoking the principles of law flowing from the
said judgment and by inviting our attention to its operative
portion, where the Court declared that land bearing Gat Nos.7/1,
7/2, 7/3 and 7/6 are not ‘Private Forests’ within the meaning of
Sub-clause (iii) of Clause (f) of Section 2 of the Maharashtra
Private Forest (Acquisition Act), 1975 and therefore, said lands
never vested in the State Government under the said Act, he
would submit that the Mutation Entry No.616 was quashed only
12015(6) Mh.L.J. 634.
page 4 of 13
Mamta Kale 8-wp-4247-2026 & Other petitions.doc
qua the Gat numbers involved in the petition.
4. It is the submission of Mr Singh that for the very
reason recorded in the said judgment, the impugned mutation
entry taken in respect of the Gat numbers in which the five
petitioners are interested, must also receive the same treatment as
no procedure under the Indian Forests Act i.e. issuance of notice
under Section 35(3) the owners of the land and final notification
under Section 35(1) of the Act of 1927 has been followed and the
petitioners are also covered by the said decision, though at the
relevant time it was only restricted to the Petitioner Dr Arjun
Sitaram Nitanwar.
5. On the previous date of hearing, he has also placed
reliance upon another decision dated 8 August 2024 in Writ
Petition No. 7430 of 2023 in respect of the Mutation Entry
No.615 when the Division Bench by relying upon the decision in
the case of Dr. Arjun Sitaram Nitanwar, declared the Mutation
Entry No.615 as illegal and directed removal of the recording of
the entry of private forest qua the lands of the petitioners and the
mutation entry was cancelled.
6. On the previous date of hearing, by appreciating the
arguments of Mr Singh, we had directed the Government
Advocate to obtain appropriate instructions.
The learned Government Advocate, on instructions,
page 5 of 13
Mamta Kale 8-wp-4247-2026 & Other petitions.doc
make a categorical statement that in all the five cases involving the
aforesaid Gat numbers, in respect of which the name of the State
Government was recorded in the wake of Mutation Entry No.616,
the notices under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 was
issued to the respective owners but on the basis of the record,
makes a statement that there is no proof of its receipt by the
owners. Apart from this, he also makes a categorical statement
that there is no notification issued under Section 35(1) of the
Indian Forest Act, 1927.
7. In the light of this statement, in our view, the
petitioners are entitled for the similar relief which was granted by
this Court in Dr. Arjun Sitaram Nitanwar in the year 2015 itself.
The State Government in the said writ petition, had
adopted a stand that the notice under Section 35(3) was issued
and therefore on 30 August 1975 i.e. the appointed date, the lands
covered by the notice dated 13 April 1957 stood acquired and
vested in the State Government. The State Government
attempted to justify the Mutation Entry No.616 and prayed for
petition to be dismissed.
8. The Division Bench made reference to the decision of
the Apex Court in case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
Vs. State of Maharashtra 2 and also made exhaustive reference to
the relevant provisions of the Act of 1975, covering the Scheme
2(2014) 3 SCC 430
page 6 of 13
Mamta Kale 8-wp-4247-2026 & Other petitions.doc
contemplated under Section 3, 5 and 6 of the Act.
The decision proceed to examine the Scheme under
Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 in regards to the
protection of the forests for special purposes, contemplated a
notification to be issued in the final Gazette regulating or
prohibiting in any forest or waste land the activity stipulated
therein. The Court also took the cognizance of Sub-section (3) of
Section 35, which contemplated that no notification shall be made
under Sub-Section(1), until after the issuance of the notice to the
owners of the said land calling on him to show cause, within a
reasonable period to be specified, why such notification should not
be made and until his objections, if any, and any evidence he may
in support of the same, have been heard by the Officer duly
appointed in that regard.
In addition, reference is specifically made to Section
36A of the Act incorporated by Bombay Act No.24 of 1995,
which prescribed the manner of service of the notice and order
under Section 36.
9. In light of the statutory Scheme, the Division Bench
appreciated the stand adopted by the respondents and noted that
even assuming that the notice under Section 35(3) of the Act of
1927 in respect of the lands of the petitioners was issued, there was
no case made out in the reply that the notices were served to the
owners. In this backdrop, at this stage, it is necessary to reproduce
the relevant observations in this regard, which reads thus-
page 7 of 13
Mamta Kale 8-wp-4247-2026 & Other petitions.doc
19. ……. “It is held by the Apex Court in its decision
in the case of Godrej Boyce that unless the notice
under sub-section (3) of section 35 of the said Act of
1927 is served to the owners, the lands do not become
private forests. under sub-clause (iii) of Clause (f) of
section 2 of the said Act of 1975. Therefore, unless it
is proved that the notice under sub-section (3) of
section 35 of the said Act of 1975 is served, the land
subject-matter of notice will not become private forest
under sub-clause (iii) of Clause (f) of section 2 of the
said Act of 1975 and, therefore, there will not be any
vesting of the said lands in the State Government in
accordance with sub-section (1) of section 3 of the said
Act of 1975. From the affidavit of Shri Sudhir
Raghunath Padwale and from the Mutation Entry No.
616, it is apparent that the name of the Government of
Maharashtra was mutated on the ground that the said
lands were private forests vesting in the State within
the meaning of sub-clause (iii) of Clause (f) of section
2 of the said Act of 1975. Assuming that the notices
under sub-section (3) of section 35 of the said Act of
1927 referred to in the reply are in respect of the said
lands, even in the affidavit, no case is made out that
the notices were served to the owners. As held in the
case of Godrej Boyce, the notices of 13th April, 1957
and 14th August, 1975 have become dead letters as a
notification under sub-section (1) of section 35 of the
said Act of 1927 has not been issued on the basis of
the said notices.”
10. In the wake of aforesaid observations, the following
declaration is issued :
(a) We declare that the lands bearing Gat Nos.7/1,
7/2, 7/3 and 7/6 of Village Yeur, Taluka nd District
Thane are not “Private Forests” within the meaning of
sub-clause (iii) of Clause (f) of Section 2 of the
page 8 of 13
Mamta Kale 8-wp-4247-2026 & Other petitions.doc
Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975
and hence, sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act
of 1975. Accordingly, the Mutation Entry No.616
only in relation to the said lands stands cancelled.
Accordingly, all entries in the Record of Rights in
existence prior to the said Mutation Entry be restored
within three months from today;
(b) We, however, make it clear that we have not made
any adjudication on the question whether the
provisions of the Indian Forests Act, 1927 and the
provisions of the Forests (Conservation) Act, 1980 are
otherwise applicable to the said lands. The said issue
is expressly kept open.
(c) We also make it clear that we have made no final
adjudication on the rights claimed by the Petitioner as
the Lessee of the said lands;
(d) Subject to what is observed in the body of the
Judgment, the Rule is made partly absolute on above
terms;
(e) No order as to costs.
11. When we compared the facts placed before us through
the present petitions, where the petitioners have also sought
deletion of Mutation Entry No.616 but in respect of respective
Gat numbers of the petitions, we find that the statement coming
before us that there is no proof of service of notice issued under
Sub-Section(3) of Section 35 and since the learned Government
Advocate has conceded that there is no notification issued under
Sub-section(1) of Section 35, in our view, the petitioners are
entitled for the similar relief and we make the petitions absolute by
the following order:-
page 9 of 13
Mamta Kale 8-wp-4247-2026 & Other petitions.doc
Writ Petition No.4247 of 2026
(a) It is declared that the land bearing old Survey
No. 56 Part, Corresponding to Gat No. 18 Hissa No.
2P admeasuring 4000 Square Meters, of Village Yeoor,
Taluka and District Thane, is not "private forest"
within the meaning of Sub-clause (iii) of Clause (f) of
Section 2 of Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition)
Act, 1975 and the said land never vested in the State
of Maharashtra by virtue of Sub-section (1) of Section
3 of the said Act of 1975. Accordingly, Mutation
Entry No.616 in relation to the said land i.e. land
bearing old Survey No. 56 Part, Corresponding to Gat
No. 18 Hissa No. 2P admeasuring 4000 Square
Meters, of Village Yeoor, Taluka and District Thane is
cancelled, and all entries in the Record of Rights in
existence prior to the said Mutation Entry No. 616 be
restored.
(b) We direct the Respondents to restore the name of
Petitioners in 7/12 extract of land bearing old Survey
No. 56 Part, Corresponding to Gat No. 18 Hissa No.
2P admeasuring 4000 Square Meters, of Village Yeoor,
Taluka and District Thane.
Writ Petition No.4248 of 2026
(a) It is declared that the land bearing old Survey
No.56 (Part), corresponding to land bearing old
Survey No. 56 Part, Corresponding to Gat No. 18
Hissa No. 2B admeasuring 10395 Square Meters, of
Village Yeoor, Taluka and District Thane, is not
"private forest" within the meaning of Sub-clause (iii)
of Clause (f) of Section 2 of Maharashtra Private
Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975 and the said land never
vested in the State of Maharashtra by virtue of Sub-
page 10 of 13
Mamta Kale 8-wp-4247-2026 & Other petitions.doc
section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act of 1975.
Accordingly, Mutation Entry No.616 in relation to the
said land i.e. land bearing old Survey No. 56 Part,
Corresponding to Gat No. 18 Hissa No. 2B
admeasuring 10395 Square Meters, of Village Yeoor,
Taluka and District Thane is cancelled, and all entries
in the Record of Rights in existence prior to the said
Mutation Entry No. 616 be restored.
(b) We direct the Respondents to restore the name of
Petitioner in 7/12 extract of land bearing old Survey
No. 56 Part, Corresponding to Gat No. 18 Hissa No.
2B admeasuring 10395 Square Meters, of Village
Yeoor, Taluka and District Thane.
Writ Petition No.4249 of 2026
a) It is declared that the land bearing old Survey
No.56 (Part), corresponding to Gat No.18 Hissa
No.2E, 64 gunthas, admeasuring approximately 6396
Square Meters situated at Village Yeoor, Taluka and
District Thane, is not "private forest" within the
meaning of Sub-clause (iii) of Clause (f) of Section 2
of Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975
and the said land never vested in the State of
Maharashtra by virtue of Sub-section (1) of Section 3
of the said Act of 1975. Accordingly, Mutation Entry
No.616 in relation to the said land i.e. land bearing old
Survey No. 56 Part, Corresponding to Gat No. 18
Hissa No. 2E, 64 gunthas admeasuring approximately
6396 Square Meters, of Village Yeoor, Taluka and
District Thane is cancelled, and all entries in the
Record of Rights in existence prior to the said
Mutation Entry No. 616 be restored.
(b) We direct the Respondents to restore the name of
Petitioner in 7/12 extract of land bearing old Survey
page 11 of 13
Mamta Kale 8-wp-4247-2026 & Other petitions.doc
No. 56 Part, Corresponding to Gat No. 18 Hissa No.
2E, 64 gunthas admeasuring approximately 6396
Square Meters, of Village Yeoor, Taluka and District
Thane.
Writ Petition No.4251 of 2026
(a) It is declared that the land bearing old Survey No.
56 Part, Corresponding to Gat No. 18 Hissa No. 2A
admeasuring 01-03-09 H-R-P, approximately 10396
Square Meters, of Village Yeoor, Taluka and District
Thane, is not "private forest" within the meaning of
Sub-clause (iii) of Clause (f) of Section 2 of
Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975
and the said land never vested in the State of
Maharashtra by virtue of Sub-section (1) of Section 3
of the said Act of 1975. Accordingly, Mutation Entry
No.616 in relation to the said land i.e. land bearing old
Survey No. 56 Part, Corresponding to Gat No. 18
Hissa No. 2A admeasuring 01-03-09 H-R-P,
approximately 10396 Square Meters, of Village Yeoor,
Taluka and District Thane is cancelled, and all entries
in the Record of Rights in existence prior to the said
Mutation Entry No. 616 be restored.
(b) We direct the Respondents to restore the name of
Petitioner in 7/12 extract of land bearing old Survey
No. 56 Part, Corresponding to Gat No. 18 Hissa No.
2A admeasuring 01-03-09 H-R-P, approximately
10396 Square Meters, of Village Yeoor, Taluka and
District Thane.
Writ Petition No.4254 of 2026
(a) It is declared that the land bearing old Survey No.
56 Part, Corresponding to Gat No. 18 Hissa No. 2M
admeasuring 01-04-00 H-R-P, approximately 10400
Square Meters, of Village Yeoor, Taluka and District
Thane, is not "private forest" within the meaning of
Sub-clause (iii) of Clause (f) of Section 2 of
page 12 of 13
Mamta Kale 8-wp-4247-2026 & Other petitions.doc
Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975
and the said land never vested in the State of
Maharashtra by virtue of Sub-section (1) of Section 3
of the said Act of 1975. Accordingly, Mutation Entry
No.616 in relation to the said land i.e. land bearing old
Survey No. 56 Part, Corresponding to Gat No. 18
Hissa No. 2M admeasuring 01-04-00 H-R-P,
approximately 10400 Square Meters, of Village Yeoor,
Taluka and District Thane is cancelled, and all entries
in the Record of Rights in existence prior to the said
Mutation Entry No. 616 be restored.
(b) We direct the Respondents to restore the name of
Petitioners in 7/12 extract of land bearing old Survey
No. 56 Part, Corresponding to Gat No. 18 Hissa No.
2M admeasuring 01-04-00 H-R-P, approximately
10400 Square Meters, of Village Yeoor, Taluka and
District Thane.
(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)
page 13 of 13
Checking your session…