Bombay High Court

SMT. ASHA PRAVIN AGARWAL THROUGH ATTORNEY MR. RATANLAL PARSARAMPURIAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Decided: 8 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The court held that without service of the notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, vesting of the land in the State cannot occur, rendering the impugned orders void.

Summary

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 and reviewed in 2010. The petitioner challenged these orders under Articles 226 and 227, arguing that the required notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act was never served. The Supreme Court in Rohan Vijay Nahar (2025) held that service, not mere issuance, of such notice is essential for vesting under the Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act. Applying this precedent, the High Court found no service of notice and therefore set aside the Collector’s and Tribunal’s orders as they related to the petitioner, directing cancellation of the mutation entry. The petition was allowed and the rule made absolute.

Issues considered

Whether issuance of a notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, without service on the landholder, suffices for vesting of land in the State under the Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975.
Whether the Collector’s order and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal’s orders are valid in the absence of service of the required notice.
Whether the mutation entry in favour of the petitioner should be cancelled on account of the invalidity of the vesting orders.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure — s. Order V
Indian Forest Act, 1927 — s. 35(1), 35(3)
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 — s. 53, 54, 54A
Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975 — s. 15, 2(f)(iii), 3(1), 6

Subjects

private forest
land acquisition
Indian Forest Act
notice service
mutation cancellation
vesting of land
High Court writ petition
Articles 226 and 227

Judgment

902-WP-9491-2011 C2.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally
signed by
HUSENBASHA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
HUSENBASHA RAHAMAN
RAHAMAN NADAF
NADAF Date:
2026.09.09
20:25:12
WRIT PETITION NO. 9491 OF 2011
+0530

Smt. Asha Pravin Agarwal through
Constituted Attorney Mr. Ratanlal Parsarampuria ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents

***
Mr. Drupad S. Patil a/w. Mr. Suyash S. Sule i/b. Mr. Prashant
Parsurampuria for the Petitioner.
Ms. M.S. Srivastava, AGP for the Respondent/State.
***
CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
DATE : 8th SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Invoking Articles 226
and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is challenging the
order dated 12.04.2010 passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal,
Mumbai (‘the Tribunal’ for short) in Review Application
No.35/C/2009, confirming the order dated 16.12.2008 passed by the
Tribunal in Appeal No. 3-A/2000 modifying the common order in
Private Forest Case No. 45/1999 dated 11.10.1999 passed by the
Collector of Raigad-Alibaug. The said order of Collector had held that
the property in question is lawfully taken in possession by the Forest
Department and it vests with the Government as reserved forest. This
was modified only to hold additionally that all the owners concerned
are entitled to retain 2 Hectares portion from Survey Nos.7 to 11 to
be specified by the Collector and enquiry to the extent was directed.

Husen 1
902-WP-9491-2011 C2.doc

2. Petitioner’s case in short is as under:-

2.1 That Petitioner is concerned with Plot No.5 from Survey Nos. 8
to 10 situated at Village Devatalia, Taluka: Alibaug District: Raigad,
which were amalgamated and divided into 71 plots. One Mr. Nilang
Desai was permitted to construct farm house with certain conditions.
The Petitioner purchased Plot No.5 from Mr. Nilang Desai by
registered document dated 24.08.1995 and Mutation entry No. 137
was effected in favour of the Petitioner.

2.2 That notices came to be issued by the Deputy Conservator of
Forest under Sections 53, 54 and 54A of The Maharashtra Land
Revenue Code, 1966 (‘the Code’ for short) stating that the property is
forest and alleging that provisions of Forest Act have been flouted.
Show cause notice was issued to which the Petitioner sent reply.
According to the Petitioner, without hearing her, the Range Forest
Officer took possession of the lands along with bungalows, swimming
pools, pathways etc.

2.3 The Petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 269 of 1998 and other
similar situated owners of the plots also filed other writ petitions
being Writ Petition No.6015 of 1997 and Writ Petition No.324 of
1998. This Court passed orders sometime in October/November 1998
directing the Deputy Collector, Alibaug to conduct inquiry under
Section 6 of the Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975
(‘MPFA Act’, for short). This led to the Collector passing an order
dated 11.10.1999 under Section 6 of MPFA Act holding that the land
including the Petitioner’s plot is Private Forest and also held that it

Husen 2
902-WP-9491-2011 C2.doc

vests in the government. The Petitioner challenged the said order, by
filing appeal in the Tribunal under Section 15 read with section 6 of
the MPFA Act.

3. In December 2008, the Tribunal clubbed 4 such appeals filed
by various plot owners including Petitioner and disposed of them by
common order dated 16.12.2008 by passing following order.

“1. Appeal Nos. 3-A-2000, 4-A-2000, 5-A-2000, and 358-2008
are partly allowed.
The order of the Collector that the lands S.Nos. 7 to 11 stand
vested to the State Government is confirmed, subject to the
modification that the land owners are entitled to retain 2 Hectares
portion of land in S.Nos. 7 to 11 to be specified by the Collector.
Collector, Raigad is directed to hold enquiry and specify the
extent of 2 Hectare portion of land in disputed S.Nos. to be retained
by the land owners (Appellants). after giving opportunity of hearing
to the appellants as well as respondents.
Parties are directed to appear before the Collector on or
before 20th January, 2009.
Record and proceeding be sent back to Lower Courts.
2. No order as to the cost.
3. Parties should be informed accordingly.”

4. The Petitioner filed review application seeking review of the
above order passed by the Tribunal which came to be dismissed
under impugned order dated 12.04.2010.

5. The present petition was admitted on 07.03.2012 by passing
following order, which is self explanatory.

“1 Heard Mr. Desai for the Petitioner.

2 This Writ Petition challenges the Orders dated 16th

Husen 3
902-WP-9491-2011 C2.doc

December, 2008 and 12th April, 2010 passed by the learned
President of MRT, Mumbai in several Appeals and Review
Petitions. One Nilang Desai had filed W.P. NO. 1177 of 2011 in this
court for challenging the same orders. The learned single Judge
S.C. Dharmadhikari, J. has dismissed the said W.P. No. 1177 of
2011 by Judgment and Order dated 19th July, 2011.

3 Another Petition No. 1178 of 2011 filed by Mr. Sachin Gupta
and others was also dismissed. Aggrieved by these Orders Nilang
Desai and Sachin Gupta and others filed LPA Nos. 229/2011 and
230/2011 and both the Appeals have been admitted by the Division
Bench by order dated 30th August, 2011. Hence, the controversy
involved in this Petition is sub-judice before the Division Bench in
the aforesaid two Appeals.

4 On this ground alone the Writ Petition is admitted. Rule.
Mr. Rayrikar, learned AGP waives service on behalf of the
Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4. Respondent No.2 is a formal party.
Until further orders, the parties will maintain status-quo. Liberty to
the Respondents to apply for vacating interim reliefs and/or for
disposal of the Writ Petition after the aforesaid two LPA Appeals
are decided.”

6. It can be therefore gathered that at the relevant time, the
present impugned order (passed common in 4 appeals) was also
challenged by Mr. Nilang Desai and Mr. Sachin Gupta, which were
dismissed by this Court (Coram: Shri. S. C. Dharmadhikari J) and the
challenge was pending under Letters Patent Appeals.

7. During pendency of this petition, the issue involved herein
about service of notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act,
1927 (‘IFA’ for short) was considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in a batch of appeals with lead matter of Rohan Vijay Nahar and Ors.
Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. [2025 SCC Online SC 2366]. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court after considering the said issue has held

Husen 4
902-WP-9491-2011 C2.doc

under:

“13. We have gone through the comprehensive material on record,
the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and for
the respondent-State, as well as the Impugned order of the High
Court. Having done so, we are of the considered view that the
Impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be sustained for the
following reasons:

13.1. In our opinion, the controlling legal position is settled. For
vesting to occur under Section 3(1) of the MPFA Act on the footing
of Section 2(f) (III), a notice under Section 35(3) of the IFA must not
only be issued but must also be served upon the landholder. The
expression "issued" in Section 2(f) (III) of the MPFA Act
comprehends due service on the owner, because service alone
triggers the owner's right to object, including the jurisdictional plea
that the land is not a forest within Section 2(c-i) of the MPFA Act,
and obliges the State to consider such objection. We are unable to
agree with the High Court that the reproduction of a draft text of
Section 35(1) beneath a Section 35(3) show cause in the Gazette
amounts to a concluded notification under Section 35(1) of the IFA.
A notice that grants time for objections cannot coexist with a final
decision under Section 35(1) without rendering the statutory hearing
illusory. Mutation entries are ministerial in nature and cannot perfect
an acquisition that lacks the statutory predicates. They neither
create title in the State nor divest title from the private owner.”

(emphasis supplied)

8. Therefore, it is clear that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held
that for the vesting to occur under Section 3(1) of the MPFA Act, a
notice under Section 35(3) of the IFA must not only be issued but
must also to be served upon land holder and expression ‘issued’
under Section 2(f)(iii) of the MPFA Act comprehends due service on
the owner, because such service alone triggers the owner’s right to
object including jurisdictional plea that the land is not a forest within

Husen 5
902-WP-9491-2011 C2.doc

the meaning of said Act and obliges the State to consider such
objection.

9. The said law laid down in Rohan Vijay Nahar (Supra) has since
been followed by this Court in the Judgment dated 14.01.2026 of
the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.10584 of 2024,
Rasik Narsingh Chauhan & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra through its
Secretary, Forest Dept. & Ors. 2025 SCC Online Bom 5508.

10. Recently thereafter in a batch of writ petitions with lead Writ
Petition No. 1536 of 2017 in the matter of Valuable Properties Pvt.
Ltd. Through the Director and Anr. Vs. The State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary and Ors. and many other writ petitions and
various Letters Patent Appeals, the Division Bench of this Court
(Coram: Smt. Bharati Dangre & Smt. Manjusha Deshpande, JJ.) in a
judgment pronounced on 23.07.2026, has held as under:

“ (K) LPA NOS.229/2011 AND 230/2011
69. Heard learned counsel Mr. Vishal Kanade for the appellant in
the two Letters Patent Appeals which are filed being aggrieved by
the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
No.1177/2011 and WP No. 1178/2011.
The learned Single Judge decided the Writ Petitions filed
under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, which raise a
challenge to the order dated 12/4/2010 passed by the Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal in Review Petitions seeking review of the
judgment delivered on 16/12/2008 passed in connected Appeals.
The proceedings involve the provisions of the Maharashtra
Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 and on coming into effect of
the Maharashtra Private Forest Act w.e.f. 30/8/1975, and the Forest
Department alleged that it took possession of the lands on
17/2/1977, but the fact was seriously disputed by the petitioners
who claimed to be in physical possession of the lands.

Husen 6
902-WP-9491-2011 C2.doc

70. In the sequence of events, when the Collector initiated an
inquiry under Section 6 of the Act, and concluded the same by
holding that except the land on which the house was constructed, all
other lands were lawfully taken in possession of the Forest
Department and they vested in the State as Forest land.
Being aggrieved by the said order, an Appeal was filed
before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal under Section 13 of the
Forest Act and the same was dismissed. Review Petition was also
filed which was also dismissed, the Writ Petition was instituted
before the said Court.
When it was urged before the Court that the order of the
Tribunal is erroneous as it did not take into consideration that the
petitioners’ land were under lawful cultivation on the appointed date,
and they should be excluded from acquisition in its entirety, and in
particular, a contention was advanced that while a notice under
Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act was issued, but it was not
received and the procedure not followed, the learned Single Judge
in paragraph no.20 to 22, recorded thus:-
"20. What is crucial is the issuance of notice and not its receipt. It is to
enable to the Court to find out as to whether, the finding recorded
concurrently that such notice was issued in the instant case, is consistent
with the record, that I called for the original record.
21. The Collector in his order has held that the notice under Section 35(3)
was issued. He has referred to the documents which were produced
before him and held that the notice was issued on 12.10.1964 to Randive.
As far as the Tribunal is concerned, in its judgment and order dated
16.12.2006, the Tribunal is concerned, in its judgment and order dated
16.12.2008, the Tribunal referred to the record and held thus:-
"9. ..... The crucial and relevant aspect is issuance of the notice
under Section 35(3) of the Forest Act and not its service. If a notice
has been issued under section 35(3) before appointed day, the
land covered by such notice becomes private forest irrespective of
the fact whether such notice has been served upon the addressee
or not. Considering the fact of the case further it has been held that
the notice which was non sealed cannot be said to be bad in law.
However, the Apex Court while granting the leave in SLP No.
398/99 held that the notice which is neither signed nor dated nor
bore the requisite seal cannot be considered to be valid notice.
Admittedly in the present case the person to whom the notice was
addressed did not challenge the notice. The original notice issued
to then landlord is not produced on record. SO it is very difficult to
conclude that notice was not signed or do not bear the date or
stamp. On the basis of the office copy of the notice retained by the

Husen 7
902-WP-9491-2011 C2.doc

Forest Department it cannot be concluded that notice sent to the
addressee, the landlord, was undated or not signed nor sealed.
Office copy produced on record bears the date of issuance of
notice as well as stamp signature of the officer who has issued the
same. The office copy also gives all details of the land in relation
which the notification u/s 35(1) was proposed to be issued. It also
shows that forms of notice were printed and space was kept blank
for mentioning the name of the officer as well as the name of the
addressee and the place where the objection was to be submitted.
Office copy bears stamp and date i.e. 12.11.64 and No. K-8232 is
also handwritten. Name of the officer with designation of the
Conservator of Forest from Thane circle is also handwritten. The
schedule is also found filled in by ink and handwritten. Name of
Yashwant Randive landowner was also written. All these details will
not found in case of non issuance of notice. As stated above the
original notice is not before us, which was sent to the landowner.
The office copy retained by the department and produced in the
proceeding gives every details, so it cannot be said that it is not a
notice in compliance to the provisions of Order V of CPC. The facts
before Lordship of the Apex Court in the case of Ankush Bowledkar
as referred in the Judgment were admitted that the notice
produced was found neither signed nor dated nor bore requisite
seal and in view of said admitted facts Lordships held that such a
notice is not produced to show that it does not comply
requirements of Order V of CPC. Office copy retained by the
Department mention the name of the Officer, name of the Landlord
and also bears the date and also the signature. So this notice
cannot be said to be invalid."
22. Thus, it concluded that the issuance of valid notice is established.”
71 As a result of the aforesaid, the Writ Petitions were dismissed
against which the Letters Patent Appeal were filed.
Since the basis of the dismissal of the two Writ Petitions is
the observation in paragraph nos.20 to 22, which now, no longer is
valid in the wake of the decision of the Apex Court in Godrej and
Boyce and Nahar (supra), the impugned judgment deserve to be
quashed and set aside, as now it is clearly held that the term ‘issue’
in sub-section (3) of Section 35 necessarily contemplate a notice
being received by the owner and the notice being served in the
manner which is prescribed under the Code of Civil Procedure or by
the publication in sub-section (5) of Section 35.
In the wake of the aforesaid, the impugned judgment is set
aside and the Writ Petition is made absolute in terms of its prayer
clause, by quashing and setting aside the impugned orders
including the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal in

Husen 8
902-WP-9491-2011 C2.doc

Appeal as well as the order passed by the Collector.”

11. It is therefore clear that, under above Judgment, the present
impugned orders passed by the Tribunal and Collector (common
orders) are set aside, albeit at the instance of other plot owners
whose LPA has been considered and allowed.

12. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, by inviting attention of the
Court to all the aforesaid orders, has submitted that since inquiry
under Section 6 of MPFA Act, by the Collector as well as the
impugned orders passed by the Tribunal were passed under common
order considering larger subject matter property Survey Nos.7 to 11,
and since the impugned order of the Tribunal has been set aside,
following the law laid down in Rohan Vijay Nahar (Supra), the
present petition deserves to be allowed in respect of Petitioner’s plot
No. 5 which is admittedly part of said larger property and the
concerned mutation entry deserves to be set aside.

13. On the other hand, learned AGP appearing for the Respondent-
State has supported the impugned orders contending inter alia that in
order to vest the property with the government, it is not necessary
that notice under Section 35(3) of the IFA must be served on the
landholder. It is however fairly accepted that no affidavit-in-reply is
filed in the present petition.

14. Having considered the rival submissions and after going
through the order of the Collector dated 11.10.1999 and impugned
orders passed by the Tribunal, it is seen that on the premise that by
mere issuing notice under Section 35(3) of the said Act, the property

Husen 9
902-WP-9491-2011 C2.doc

changes into private forest to be deemed reserved and vested with
the State Government, the Collector has passed the order. Perusal of
the impugned order dated 16.12.2008, especially paragraph Nos. 8
and 9 thereof would indicate that Tribunal has also proceeded on the
footing that mere issuance of notice under Section 35(3) of IFA is
sufficient for vesting of the property in government and not its
service. The Tribunal, on facts, found that issuance of notice has been
established and hence impugned orders are passed.

15. As indicated above, one of the plot owners had filed Writ
Petition No. 1177 of 2011, which was heard and dismissed by this
Court under order dated 19.07.2011 and which decision was then
challenged in the Letters Patent Appeal No. 229 of 2011. Perusal of
the paragraph Nos.12 & 15 of the judgment (in Writ Petition No.
1177 of 2011) clearly establishes that in case of the present subject
matter lands (Survey Nos. 7 to 11) the landholder/owner at the
relevant time was one Mr. Yashwant Ranadive was not served with
the notice under Section 35(3) of the IFA. It further appears that
though an erroneous statement was made in the affidavit-in-reply, it
was fairly conceded before the Court that no acknowledgment by Mr.
Ranadive was produced and notice was not received by Mr. Ranadive.

16. In that view of the matter, even in the present petition,
involving the same impugned orders and same notice to the land
owner, there is no service of notice under Section 35(3) of the IFA.

17. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders cannot be
sustained in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

Husen 10
902-WP-9491-2011 C2.doc

in Rohan Vijay Nahar (Supra). Since notice under Section 35(3) of
the IFA is not shown to be served upon the land owner, the subject
matter land cannot vest in the government.

18. The petition therefore succeeds. The impugned orders dated
11.10.1999, 16.12.2008 and 12.04.2010 are quashed and set aside
only to the extent they relate to the Petitioner Smt. Asha Pravin
Agarwal and her Plot No.5. The Appeal No.3-A/2000, so far as it
relates to the Petitioner Smt. Asha Pravin Agarwal, is allowed thereby
setting aside the order dated 11.10.1999 in Private Forest Case No.
45/1999, to the extent it applies to Petitioner Smt. Asha Pravin
Agarwal.

19. Consequently the Respondents are directed to cancel Mutation
entry No. 180 dated 15.01.2003 so far as it relates to Petitioner Smt.
Asha Pravin Agarwal and to the subject matter plot No.5, within a
period of 6 weeks from today.

20. Petition is disposed of and Rule is made absolute in above
terms. No order as to costs.

21. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed
QR verifiable copy of this order.

(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)

Husen 11

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…