Mumbai: Bombay high court recently held that 217 acres of land in Manpada, Thane, could not be dubbed a private forest and dismissed the state govt’s challenge to a Maharashtra revenue tribunal order of 2017 that set aside the acquisition of land by the govt.The HC held that no notice was served by the state on the actual landowner, D Dahyabhai and Co Pvt Ltd, before acquiring the land as private forest, as mandated, and hence the state’s plea failed. The dispute originated 50 years ago.
The HC said the Supreme Court in the Godrej & Boyce case settled that service must be done properly and on the landowner for any proposed acquisition of land under the state’s private forest Act. In this case, the notice had several glaring aspects, one of which was that it was signed merely by a forest guard and not an authorised officer, said Justices R V Ghuge and Ashwin Bhobe. The HC found the notice was not served on Dahyabhai and Co Pvt Ltd, but on some other entity. Besides, 14 acres were already transferred before such notice for various uses.The HC allowed a petition filed by landowners and directed the Thane Municipal Corporation to grant Dayabhai, in 21 days, development permissions and transferable development rights (TDR) against 100 acres reserved for a park. The plea said around 104 acres was acquired, owned and possessed by the TMC, which used it for a 40 metres DP road, Thane Municipal Bus Depot, and reserved portions for a garden, maternity home, park, school and Metro rail, as well as the twin tunnel, a public project, at an advanced stage.The state, through the chief conservator of forests and director of Sanjay Gandhi National Park, wanted the land in Manpada to be declared as finally acquired private forest, with the status of deemed reserved forest. The landowner denied it was a private forest and also cited the SC judgment in the Godrej & Boyce case to contend that service of notice under the Forest Act on the landowner was also to be done before Aug 30, 1975.A 373-page judgment made available on Friday, said the SC ruling on private forest acquisition mandated proper notice on landowners and, “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.”The state, represented by senior counsel Janak Dwarkadas, petitioned the HC in 2018 and argued that tribunal erred in accepting the landowner’s submission over the notice date when the SC never prescribed that notice be served before August 30, 1975, the date of coming into force of the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975.The state said the notice for protection and notification of forest land was issued on Aug 29, 1975 under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and served on Dayabhai on Sept 4, 1975, and was thus “live” and legitimately served, with “multiple opportunities for the landowner to present his case.”The landowner, through its counsel Cherag Balsara, argued that despite the land being in possession of his client for decades, for almost 48 years the state never claimed it was forest land nor issued any such notice under the Indian Forest Act until it was “arbitrarily” issued just a day prior to commencement of the State private forest (acquisition) Act, with no proof of service to the landowner. The land was already used by then for cultivation and quarry, he said.The HC agreed that the MRT was wrong only in holding that the State’s notice had to be served prior to Aug 30, 1975. The state argued that since the landowner subsequently reacted and participated in discussions, it indicated notice was properly served. The HC found such contention to be one of “desperation which is a result of surmises, conjectures and presumptions” and dismissed the state’s petition.
