Thane Landowner Disputes Forest Takeover Citing Missing Final Notification; Bombay High Court Upholds Acquisition After Finding 1960 Notice Served And State Possession Taken In 1975
Farmland Or Private Forest? Bombay High Court Upholds State Takeover Of Thane Land Because Forest Notice Was Served And Government Took Possession In 1975
Facts
The dispute concerned land bearing Survey No. 201 (Part), admeasuring 6 hectares and 72 ares, at Village Ambivali, Taluka Shahapur, District Thane. The original petitioner, Abdul Kadir Ibrahim Memon, was subsequently represented by his legal heirs, Imran Abdul Kadir Memon and Nusrat Iqban Memon. The issue was whether this land had been validly acquired and retained by the State as a private forest under the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 (MPFA).
A show-cause notice dated 15 July 1960 under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (IFA), was served on 3 August 1960 on the owner/predecessor. Service was undisputed. The State relied on records of an inquiry under Section 22A of the MPFA and a possession receipt to show that Survey No. 201 (Part) was retained by the Government and possession was taken on 20 September 1975, rather than being among the properties restored to the landholder.
A protected-tenancy declaration made in 1988 was set aside in a tenancy appeal on 4 September 1991. In March 1998, the Forest Department declined permission sought in relation to felling trees. On 19 September 1998, the Deputy Collector, Private Forests (Acquisition), Thane, declared the land agricultural, held the MPFA inapplicable and excluded it from acquisition. On the State’s appeal, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal reversed that decision on 31 March 2001 and treated the land as private forest. The petitioners challenged the Tribunal’s order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.
Issues
Whether a notice under Section 35(3) of the IFA, served in 1960 but not followed by a demonstrated final notification under Section 35(1), could still support the State’s acquisition and retention of the land under the MPFA.
Whether the tenancy and agricultural-use material displaced the State’s documentary evidence of a Section 22A inquiry and taking of possession in 1975; and whether the Tribunal’s reversal of the Deputy Collector’s order warranted interference in writ jurisdiction.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners conceded service of the Section 35(3) notice, but contended that the absence of a final notification under Section 35(1) meant the land had not vested in the Government. They invoked the Supreme Court’s decision in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and the Bombay High Court’s ruling in Satelite Developers Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra to argue that a stale, uncompleted forest notice could not sustain vesting.
They also relied on tenancy proceedings and material concerning agricultural cultivation to support the Deputy Collector’s 1998 conclusion that the land was agricultural rather than private forest. Reliance was additionally placed on Ramrati Ramdulari Shahu v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhiwandi.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State submitted that the Section 35(3) notice had admittedly been served and had been acted upon. It produced a possession receipt and the landholding statement prepared during the Section 22A inquiry, contending that the subject land had been taken over in September 1975 and was not part of the land restored to the owner.
The State further contended that subsequent tenancy orders or assertions of cultivation could not alter land already retained as private forest. It referred to the presence of more than 2,000 trees, including teak, khair and pine, and argued that the Tribunal had correctly appreciated the evidence, leaving no perversity justifying interference.
Analysis of the Law
The Court considered Sections 35(3) and 35(1) of the IFA alongside the MPFA scheme, including the definition of private forest in Section 2(f)(iii), the taking of possession under Section 5, disputes under Section 6 and the inquiry contemplated by Section 22A. The central distinction was between an old forest notice that had lapsed without meaningful action and a notice that had been served and implemented through the statutory acquisition process.
The Court did not hold that mere issuance of an old notice is sufficient in every case. Rather, it stressed the combined evidence of actual service, the Section 22A inquiry, express retention of Survey No. 201 (Part) and the State’s taking possession in 1975. On these specific facts, the failure to produce a final Section 35(1) notification did not entitle the petitioners to reopen acquisition decades later.
Precedent Analysis
In Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 3 SCC 430, the Supreme Court discussed “pipeline” or “live” notices under Section 35(3) and the limited relevance of old notices that had exhausted their shelf life. The Court also considered Satelite Developers Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 2761, which addressed that principle.
The Bombay High Court distinguished those decisions because, here, the 1960 notice was duly served and the State had acted upon it, completed the relevant inquiry and taken possession. Ramrati Ramdulari Shahu v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhiwandi, Writ Petition No. 98 of 1992 (order dated 26 July 2002), was also distinguished: the land in that case had been restored under Section 22A, whereas the present land had been retained by the State.
Court’s Reasoning
Justice M.M. Sathaye treated admitted service of the Section 35(3) notice as a critical factual distinction. The Section 22A landholding chart recorded notice No. ET-3043 dated 15 July 1960, served on 3 August 1960, and distinguished lands restored to the owner from lands retained by the State. Survey No. 201 (Part) fell in the retained category. The Court also accepted the signed possession receipt identifying the disputed land as taken into State possession in 1975.
The Court observed that the 1998 proceedings arose some 23 years after possession had been taken, following the request to cut trees. It found the Deputy Collector’s 1998 treatment of vesting cryptic and inconsistent with the available records, whereas the Tribunal had properly evaluated the possession receipt, retention records and surrounding circumstances. The Court therefore regarded the notice as a “live” notice acted upon within its operative life, found no perversity in the Tribunal’s view and rejected the petitioners’ assertion of continued possession.
Conclusion
The writ petition was dismissed, leaving intact the Tribunal’s decision that Survey No. 201 (Part) was retained by the State as private forest. The interim order of 3 September 2001 continued to operate against the petitioners but was vacated as against the State. There was no order as to costs. At the petitioners’ request, the Court stayed the operation of its judgment for four weeks, having regard to the long pendency of the proceedings.
Case: Abdul Kadir Ibrahim Memon (since deceased, through legal representatives Imran Abdul Kadir Memon and Nusrat Iqban Memon) v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 4072 of 2001 | Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:41386
Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Sathaye
Date: 12 October 2026
Result: Writ petition dismissed; Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal’s order sustained; existing interim restraint continued against petitioners and vacated against the State; operation of judgment stayed for four weeks; no order as to costs.
