Full Text
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 3511 OF 2022
1. Rasik Narsingh Chauhan ]
Age: 48 years, R/at.: A-1201, Twins Tower, ]
Plot No. 57, Sector 20, Kharghar, ]
Navi Mumbai ]
2. Bharat Narsingh Patel ]
Age: 45 years, R/at.: Flat No. C-302, ]
Shubharambha Complex, Plot No. 19, ]
Kharghar, Navi Mumbai ]
3. Bhausaheb Namdev Shingade ]
Age: 60 years, R/at.: 905/908, Shelton ]
Cubix, Sector 15, CBD Belapur, ]
Navi Mumbai ]
4. Khushalchandra Lalitaprasad ]
Poddar ]
Age: 76 years, R/at.: 2/3, Niraj Bungalow, ]
Nashik ]
5. Suresh Bhaurao Wagh ]
Age: 48 years, R/at.: Flat No.7, Venkatesh ]
Ashish Apts. Vrundavan Colony, ]
Dwarka, Nashik ]
6. Tejas Pravinchandra Shah ]
Age: 43 years, R/at.: 19, Sumati CHS, ]
Canada Corner, Nashik ]
7. Krishna Nivrutti Pawale ]
Age: 48 years, R/at.: 4/B, Munshi Chamber, ]
Tisri Pasta, Colaba, Mumbai ]
8. Narottam Meghji Patel ]
Age: 57 years, R/at.: Flat No. B-503, ]
Shubharambh Complex, Plot No.19, ]
Kharghar, Navi Mumbai ]
Age: 50 years, R/at.: 302, Near Aditya ]
Petrol Pump, Jayashree Apts. ]
Sawarkar Nagar, Nashik ] .. Petitioners
Through its Secretary, Forest Dept. ]
Having its office at Mantralaya, Mumbai. ]
2. The Deputy Conservator of Forests ]
(Territorial) Alibag, Raigad ]
Having office at: Near Collector Office, ]
At post Taluka: Alibag, ]
District: Raigad – 402 201. ]
3. Divisional Forest Officer, Alibag ]
Having office at: Alibag, ]
Taluka: Alibag, District: Raigad. ]
Having office at Raigad. ]
5. Tahsildar, Panvel, ]
Having office at: Panvel, ]
Taluka: Panvel, District: Panvel. ]
6. Talathi, Morbe ]
Having office at: Morbe ]
Village: Morbe, Tal- Panvel, ]
District: Raigad. ] .. Respondents
Mr. Drupad Patil, with Mr. Balasaheb G. Ligade, for the
Petitioners.
Ms. S.D. Vyas, Addl. GP, with Mr. M.M. Pabale, AGP, for the
Respondent-State/ Respondent Nos. 1 to 6.
Mr. Sagar Mali, Assistant Conservator of Forest, (Territorial and
Wild Life), Panvel Division, Alibag, Raigad, present in Court.
JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally.
2. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioners seek an order and direction for setting aside Mutation Entry Nos. 1700 and 1770, pertaining to old Survey Nos. 65/1, 66/1 and 101/3 (New Survey Nos. 66/1/A, 66/1/B/1, 66/1/B/2, 66/1/B/3, 66/1/B/4, 67/1/A/A, 67/1/A/2, 67/1/A/3, 67/1/A/4 and 102/3) at Village Moreb, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad (for short the “said lands”). By the impugned Mutation Entries, the said lands have been treated as Forest Lands, and a remark has been inserted that for non-forest activities, the landowners would be required to obtain permission from the Central Government.
3. According to the Petitioners, the said lands bearing old Survey Nos. 65/1, 66/1 and 101/3 were originally owned by one Bhau Babu Patil, 24th Dadu Babu Patil and Krushna Tukaram Patil, respectively. According to the Petitioners, without any notice issued under Section 35(3), or a notification issued under Section 35(1) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (for short the “Indian Forest Act”), the said lands were treated as forest lands by the Government. This apart, according to the Petitioners, by virtue of orders dated 26th September 1978 passed suo motu by the Collector under Section 22A of the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 (for short the “MPF Act”), the said lands were re-granted to the original owners and were excluded from the provisions of the MPF Act.
4. It is also the case of the Petitioners that possession of the said lands was never taken by the State Government, and the said lands were partitioned between the family members, and effect of the said partition was given in the revenue records vide Mutation Entry Nos. 1457 and 1458 dated 11th July 1984 (annexed at page Nos. 44 and 45 of the Petition). The Petitioners are purchasers of the said lands whose names are duly recorded in the revenue record vide Mutation Entry Nos. 2000 to 2008, 2019 and 2335 as evidenced by copies of the 7/12 extract annexed from pages 31 to 40 of the Petition. 24th
5. In this factual backdrop, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners canvassed the following legal submissions:- (a) Since no notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act were ever served in relation to the said lands, and neither was there any notification issued under Section 35(1) in relation thereto, the said lands can never be termed as a forest or private forest lands. In support of this submission, the learned Counsel relied upon the following judgments:-
(i) Shashikant Kantilal Pokharna Vs. State of
(ii) Godrej Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs.
(iii) Rohan Nahar Vs. State of Maharashtra
(b) By virtue of an order dated 26th September 1978 passed by the Collector under Section 22A of the MPF Act, the said lands were excluded from the purview of the MPF Act. This argument is predicated on the fact that the Collector, under Section 22A of the MPF Act, has passed an order on 26th September 1978 declaring that the said lands shall cease to be a reserved forest within the meaning of the Indian Forest Act and be deemed to 24th have been re-granted to the owner and shall be re-vested in him subject, however, to all encumbrances if any, lawfully subsisting on the day immediately preceding the appointed day (i.e. the day when the MPF Act was brought into force). Once an order is passed under Section 22A, before the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 was brought into force, the Petitioners are not obliged to obtain permission from the Central Government for carrying on any non-forest activities on the said lands.
6. For all these reasons, according to the Petitioners, there can be no noting in the Mutation Entries to the effect that for non-forest activities, the landowners would be required to obtain permission from the Central Government. Accordingly, it is prayed that the said remarks be quashed.
7. On the other hand, the Respondents contended that the Petitioners are subsequent purchasers of the said lands with full knowledge regarding the remarks inserted in the revenue records vide Mutation Entry Nos. 1700 and 1770. According to the Respondents, the said lands are covered by the definition of “private forest” as defined in the MPF Act. Furthermore, since the said lands are restored by exercising powers under Section 22A, prior permission of the Central Government would be necessary 24th before commencing any non-forest activities as per the provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
8. It was further contended that even after the restoration orders passed under Section 22A of the MPF Act, the nature of the said lands would not change and would remain as a forest. Hence, prior permission of the Central Government would be necessary to change the nature or user of the said lands. The Respondents also, in support of their submission, relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T. N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad Vs. Union of India and Ors. [1997 (2) SCC 267]. According to the Respondents, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said decision has highlighted the significant matters relating to the protection and conservation of the forests throughout the country. According to the Respondents, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision opined that the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 was enacted with a view to check further deforestation, which ultimately resulted in an ecological imbalance. Therefore, provisions made in the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (for conservation of forests and matters connected therewith), must apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of the ownership or classification thereof. The Respondents contended that the Hon’ble Supreme Court [in the aforesaid decision] also opined that the word “forest” must be understood 24th according to its dictionary meaning. This description would cover all statutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise, for the purposes of Section 2(i) of the Forest (Conservation) Act,
1980. The Respondents submitted that in fact, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in order to preserve forests, also gave directions to all State Governments to constitute an expert committee for identifying areas which are forests, irrespective of whether they are so notified, recognised or classified under any law and irrespective of the ownership of the land. As per these directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the State of Maharashtra had constituted an expert committee consisting of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests (Chairman), Chief Conservator of Forests (Conservator) (Member), and Director, Social Forestry (Member). Pursuant to the formation of this expert committee, further sub-committees at the district level were also constituted. According to the Respondents, these committees have opined that the said lands have been identified as forests.
9. It was the submission of the Respondents that once the subcommittees have identified the said lands as a forest, the character of the said lands did not change from a forest to ordinary developable land merely by virtue of the fact that the said lands had been restored to the original owner by an order passed by the Collector under Section 22A. The recent Google 24th images also reveal that the said lands along with the adjoining land parcels of land are a forest, and to change its nature and use, permission from the Central Government would have to be obtained. Once this is the case, the conditions inserted in the impugned Mutation Entries only oblige the Petitioners to seek necessary prior approval of the Central Government before utilising the said lands for any non-forest use. For all these reasons, the Respondents submitted that the above Petition is without any merit and hence ought to be dismissed.
10. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused papers and proceedings in the above Writ Petition. Before we get into the specific facts of the present case, it would be apposite to first set out certain provisions of the relevant statutes.
11. The Indian Forest Act was enacted to consolidate the law relating to forests, the transit of forest-produce and the duty leviable on timber and other forest-produce. The said Act, as adapted and amended in the erstwhile State of Bombay, and in the State of Maharashtra, contains Chapter V which deals with control over forests and lands not being the property of the Government. By the Indian Forest Act as amended by Bombay Act 62 of 1948, Section 34-A was inserted to provides an inclusive 24th definition of a “forest” for the purposes of Chapter V. By the same amending law, “wastelands” were removed from the reach of certain parts of Chapter V with effect from 04.12.1948. Further amendments were carried out by Bombay Act 24 of 1955 and by Maharashtra Act 6 of 1961. Section 35 of this Act empowers the State Government to regulate or prohibit specified activities in any forest for the stated public purposes. The aforementioned provisions have been reproduced hereunder: “34A. Interpretation:- For the purposes of the Chapter “forest” includes any land containing trees and shrubs, pasture, lands and any other land whatsoever which the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare to be a forest.
35. Protection of forests for special purposes:- (1) The State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette-
(i) regulate or prohibit in any forest-
(c) the firing or clearing of the vegetation;
(d) the girdling, tapping or burning of any tree or the stripping off the bark or leaves from any trees; (e) the lopping and pollarding of trees; (f) the cutting, sawing, conversion and removal of trees and timber; or (g) the quarring of stone or the burning of lime or charcoal or the collection or removal of any forest produce or its subjection to any manufacturing process;
(ii) regulate in any forest the regeneration of forests and their protection from fire; when such regulation or prohibition appears necessary for any of the following purposes; (a) for the conservation of trees and forests; 24th (b) for the preservation and improvement of soil or the reclamation of saline or water logged land, the prevention of landslips or of the formation of ravines and torrents, or the protection of land against erosion, or the deposit thereon of sand, stones or gravel;
(c) for the improvement of grazing;
(d) for the maintenance of a water supply in spring, river and tanks;
(e) for the maintenance, increase and distribution of the supply of fodder, leaf manure, timber or fuel; (f) for the maintenance of reservoirs or irrigation works and hydro-electric works; (g) for protection against storms, winds, rolling stones, floods and drought; (h) for the protection of roads, bridges, railways and other lines of communication; and
(i) for the preservation of the public health.
(2) The State Government may, for any such purpose, construct at its own expense in any forest such work as it thinks fit. (3) No notification shall be made under sub-section (1) nor shall any work be begun under sub-section (2), until after the issue by an officer authorised by the State Government in that behalf of a notice to the owner of such forest calling on him to show cause within a reasonable period to be specified in such notice why such notification should not be made or work constructed as the case may be, and until his objection, if any, and any evidence he may produce in support of the same, have been heard by an officer duly appointed in that behalf and have been considered by the State Government. (4) A notice to show cause why a notification under sub-section (1) should not be made, may require that for any period not exceeding one year or till the date of the making of a notification, whichever is earlier the owner of such forest and all persons who are entitled or permitted to do therein any or all of the things specified in clause (i) of sub-section (1), whether by reason of any right, title or interest or under any licence or contract or otherwise, shall not, after the date of the notice and for the period or until the date aforesaid, as the case may be, do any or all the things specified in clause (i) of sub-section (1), to the extent specified in the notice. (5) A notice issued under sub-section (3) shall be served on the owner of such forest in the manner provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, 24th 1908 for the service of summons and shall also be published in the manner prescribed by rules. (5A) Where a notice issued under sub-section (3) has been served on the owner of a forest in accordance with sub-section (5), any person acquiring thereafter the right of a ownership of that forest shall be bound by the notice as if it had been served on him as an owner and he shall accordingly comply with the notice, requisition and notification, if any, issued under this section. (б) Any person contravening any requisition made under sub-section (4) in a notice to show cause why a notification under sub-section (1) should not be made shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months or with fine, or with both. (7) Any person contravening any of the provision of a notification issued under sub-section (1) shall, on conviction, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.”
12. As can be seen from the scheme of Section 35, under Section 35(1) the State Government may, by notification, regulate or prohibit any forest activities more particularly set out in Section 35(1)(i) and (ii). Subsection (3) of Section 35 clearly stipulates that no notification shall be made under sub-section (1), nor shall any work be begun under sub-section (2), until after the issue, by an officer authorised by the State Government in that behalf, a notice to the owner of such forest, calling upon him to show cause why a notification under Section 35(1) should not be made. In other words, before a notification under Section 35(1) can be issued, a hearing has to be given to the owner of the said forest. Sub-section (5) prescribes the manner in which notice under sub-section (3) has to be served on the owner of the 24th forest and sub-section (5A) stipulates that where the notice under sub-section (3) has been served on the owner in accordance with sub-section (5), any person thereafter acquiring any ownership of that forest, shall be bound by the notice as if it had been served on him as an owner and he shall accordingly comply with the notice, requisition and notification, if any, issued under Section 35. In other words, under the Indian Forest Act, before regulating any activities in a forest, a notice under Section 35(3) has to be issued to the landowner. Once this notice is issued and he is heard, the State Government, by a notification, can regulate the activities that may be permitted and/or prohibited on the said land. If the said land is sold, the subsequent purchaser would be bound by any notice served under Section 35(3) to the original owner or by any notification issued in relation to the said land.
13. The State legislation, namely, the MPF Act was brought into force on 30th August 1975. This Act was promulgated to acquire private forests in the State and to provide for certain other matters. Since private forests in the State were generally in a highly degraded and over exploited condition, and were diversely affecting agriculture and the agricultural population, it was expedient to acquire private forests in the State of Maharashtra for conserving their material resources and protecting them 24th from destruction or over exploitation by their owners, and for promoting systematic and scientific development and management of such forests for the purpose of attaining and maintaining an ecological balance in public interest. Section 2(c-i) of the MPF Act defines the word “forest” for the purposes of the said Act and Section 2(d) defines the word “Forest Act” to mean the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (XVI of 1927) in its application to the State of Maharashtra. Section 2(f) defines the word “private forest” and reads thus:- “(f) “private forest” means any forest which is not the property of Government and includes,-
(i) any land declared before the appointed day to be a forest under section 34A of the Forest Act;
(ii) any forest in respect of which any notification issued under sub-section (1) of section 35 of the Forest Act, is in force immediately before the appointed day;
(iii) any land in respect of which a notice has been issued under sub-section (3) of section 35 of the Forest Act, but excluding an area not exceeding two hectares in extent as the Collector may specify in this behalf;
(iv) land in respect of which a notification has been issued under section 38 of the Forest Act;
(v) in a case where the State Government and any other person are jointly interested in the forest, the interest of such person in such forest;
(vi) sites of dwelling houses constructed in such forest which are considered to be necessary for the convenient enjoyment or use of the forest and lands appurtenant thereto;” 24th
14. If a particular land falls within the definition set out in Section 2(f), the same would be a private forest and would then stand acquired and vested free from all encumbrances in the State Government as more particularly set out in Section 3. Section 3 of the MPF Act reads as under:- “3. Vesting of private forests in State Government (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or in any settlement, grant, agreement, usage, custom or any decree or order of any Court, Tribunal or authority or any other document, with effect on and from the appointed day, all private forests in the State shall stand acquired and vest, free from all encumbrances, in and shall be deemed to be, with all rights in or over the same or appertaining thereto, the property of the State Government, and all rights, title and interest of the owner or any person other than Government subsisting in any such forest on the said day shall be deemed to have been extinguished. (2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to so much extent of land comprised in a private forest as is held by an occupant or tenant and is lawfully under cultivation on the appointed day and is not in excess of the ceiling area provided by Section 5 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, for the time being in force or any building or structure standings thereon or appurtenant thereto. (3) All private forests vested in the State Government under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to be reserved forests within the meaning of the Forest Act.”
15. The next provision, which is relevant for our purposes, is Section 22A of the MPF Act which was inserted by Mah. 14 of 1978. The same reads as under:- “22A. Restoration of forest land to owner in certain circumstances (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Act, if, on an application made by any owner of private forest, within a period of six months from the date of commencement of the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) (Amendment) Act, 1978, or suo motu at any 24th time, the Collector, after holding such inquiry as he deems fit, is satisfied that the total holding of land of such owner became less than twelve hectares on the appointed day on account of acquision of his forest land under this Act or that the total holding of land of such owner was already less than twelve hectares on the day immediately preceding the appointed day, the Collector shall determine whether the whole of the forest land acquired from such owner or what portion thereof shall be restored to him, so, however, that his total holding of land, on the appointed day, shall not exceed twelve hectares. (2) After the Collector has determined the area and situation of the land to be restored to any owner of private forest, the Collector shall make an order, that with effect from the date of his order, the land specified therein, which was acquired and vested in the State Government, shall cease to be a reserved forest within the meaning of the Forest Act, be deemed to have been regranted to the owner and shall be revested in him, subject, however, to all encumbrances if any, lawfully subsisting on the day immediately preceding the appointed day, which shall stand revived. Possession of the land so restored shall be given by the Collector to the owner as far as may be practicable under the circumstances, within a period of one month from the date of the order. (3) If the amount payable to the owner of private forest under section 7 has been paid to him or the holder of the encumbrances, if any, the Collector shall determine what would have been the amount or the proportionate amount payable to him under section 7 in respect of the land restored to him under sub-section (2), without taking into consideration the deductions to be made for paying the holders of encumbrances, if any, and shall by order direct the owner to repay the amount so determined to the State Government, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of such order by the owner. If the amount is not repaid in time, it shall be recoverable as an arrear of land revenue. When any amount due is repaid by the owner to the State Government, he shall be entitled to make necessary adjustment with the holders of the encumbrances, if any, for any payment made to them by the State Government in respect of the land revested in the owner. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code or this Act, no appeal shall lie against any decision or order of the Collector under this section, but the Commissioner or the State Government may, within a period not exceeding one year from the date of such decision or order,— (a) call for the record of any inquiry or proceedings of the Collector for the purpose of satisfying himself or itself as to 24th the legality or propriety of such decision or order, and as to the regularity of such proceedings, as the case may be, and (b) pass such order thereon as he or it deems fit: Provided that, no such decision or order shall be modified, annuled or reversed, unless opportunity has been given to the interested parties to appear and to be heard. (5) Any decision taken or order made under this section by the Collector, subject to any revision by the Commissioner or the State Government, and any order made by the Commissioner or the State Government in revision, shall be final and conclusive and shall not be questioned in any suit or proceeding in any Court. (6) Nothing contained in this section shall apply to any land in a private forest which was used immediately before the appointed day for extracting of minor mineral such as stone quarries. Accordingly, such land shall not be taken into consideration and shall not be liable to be restored under this section.”
16. Sub-section (1) of Section 22A provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of the said Act, on an application made by the owner of the private forest, within a period of 6 months from the date of commencement of the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) (Amendment) Act, 1978, or suo motu at any time, the Collector, after holding such inquiry, is satisfied that the total holding of land of such owner became less than 12 hectares on the appointed day on account of acquisition of his forest land, or that the total holding of land of such owner was already less than 12 hectares, the Collector can determine whether the whole of the forest land acquired from such owner or what portion thereof shall be restored to him. Sub-section (2) of Section 22A mandates the 24th Collector to make an order that with effect from the date of his order, the land specified therein, which was acquired and vested in the State Government, shall cease to be a reserved forest within the meaning of the Indian Forest Act and be deemed to have been re-granted to the owner and shall be re-vested in him, subject, however, to all encumbrances if any, lawfully subsisting on the day immediately preceding on the appointed day, which shall stand revived.
17. The purpose of bringing Section 22A on the statute book was because the owners of private forests (other than those whose lands were used for extracting minor mineral such as stone quarries), whose total holdings of lands became less than 12 hectares on account of the aforesaid acquisition, or whose total holdings were already less than 12 hectares, then the whole or appropriate portion of the forest lands could be restored and revested in them so that they could continue to earn their livelihood from such lands. In other words, the purpose was that the owners of these private forests are not rendered landless.
18. The next legislation which is relevant for our purpose would be the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. This Act was brought into force with effect from 25th October 1980. Section 2 of this Act restrains the use of forest 24th land for non-forest purposes without the approval of the Central Government and also regulates the de-reservation and assignment of forest lands. Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 [before amendments in the said Act in 2023], read as under:- “2. Restriction on the de-reservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose. - Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing, -
(i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the expression “reserved forest” in any law for the time being in force in that State) or any portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved;
(ii) that any forest-land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose;
(iii) that any forest-land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organisation not owned, managed or controlled by Government;
(iv) that any forest-land or any portion thereof may be cleared of trees which have grown naturally in that land or portion, for the purpose of using it for reafforestation. Explanation - For the purposes of this section “non-forest purpose” means the breaking up or clearing of any forest-land or portion thereof for- (a) the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil bearing plants, horticultural crops or medicinal plants; (b) any purpose other than reafforestation, but does not include any work relating or ancillary to conservation, development and management of forests and wild life, namely, the establishment of check-posts, fire lines, wireless communications and construction of fencing, bridges and culverts, dams, waterholes, trench marks, boundary marks, pipelines or other like purposes.” 24th
19. From this Section, it is clear that from the date when the aforesaid Act was brought into force, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority could make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order inter alia directing that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the expression “reserved forest” in any other law for the time being in force in the State) or any portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved. In other words, in the factual situation before us, from 25th October 1980, no order could be passed under Section 22A of the MPF Act inter alia declaring that the said lands ceased to be a reserved forest, and if any such order was passed, the same could obviously not be given effect to because no such declaration could have been made by virtue of the restriction set out in Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
20. However, in 2023, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 was amended, and the name of the Act was also changed to The Van (Sanrakshan Evam Samvardhan) Adhiniyam, 1980. By virtue of the amendments of 2023, Section 1-A was inserted, and the restrictions set out in Section 2 were also modified. Section 1-A, as inserted by the amendment of 2023, as well as Section 2 [after amendment], read thus:- 24th “1-A. Act to cover certain land.- (1) The following land shall be covered under the provisions of this Act, namely:- (a) the land that has been declared or notified as a forest in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (16 of 1927) or under any other law for the time being in force; (b) the land that is not covered under clause (a), but has been recorded in Government record as forest, as on or after the 25th October, 1980: Provided that the provisions of this clause shall not apply to such land, which has been changed from forest use to use for non-forest purpose on or before the 12th December, 1996 in pursuance of an order, issued by any authority authorised by a State Government or an Union territory Administration in that behalf. Explanation. - For the purposes of this sub-section, the expression "Government record" means record held by Revenue Department or Forest Department of the State Government or Union territory Administration, or any authority, local body, community or council recognised by the State Government or Union territory Administration. (2) The following categories of land shall not be covered under the provisions of this Act, namely:- (a) such forest land situated alongside a rail line or a public road maintained by the Government, which provides access to a habitation, or to a rail, and roadside amenity up to a maximum size of 0.10 hectare in each case; (b) such tree, tree plantation or reafforestation raised on lands that are not specified in clause (a) or clause (b) of subsection (1); and
(c) such forest land, -
(i) as is situated within a distance of one hundred kilometres along international borders or Line of Control or Line of Actual Control, as the case may be, proposed to be used for construction of strategic linear project of national importance and concerning national security; or 24th
(ii) up to ten hectares, proposed to be used for construction of security related infrastructure; or
(iii) as is proposed to be used for construction of defence related project or a camp for paramilitary forces or public utility projects, as may be specified by the Central Government, the extent of which does not exceed five hectares in a Left Wing Extremism affected area as may be notified by the Central Government. (3) The exemption provided under sub-section (2) shall be subject to such terms and conditions, including the conditions of planting trees to compensate felling of trees undertaken on the lands, as the Central Government may, by guidelines, specify.” “2. Restriction on the de-reservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing,-
(i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the expression "reserved forest" in any law for the time being in force in that State) or any portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved;
(ii) that any forest-land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose;
(iii) that any forest-land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organisation, subject to such terms and conditions, as the Central Government may, by order, specify;
(iv) that any forest-land or any portion thereof may be cleared of trees which have grown naturally in that land or portion, for the purpose of using it for reafforestation. 24th Explanation.- For the purposes of this section "non-forest purpose" means the breaking up or clearing of any forest-land or portion thereof for- (a) the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil bearing plants, horticultural crops or medicinal plants; (b) any purpose other than reafforestation, but does not include any work relating to or ancillary to conservation, development and management of forests and wildlife, such as-
(i) silvicultural operations including regeneration operations;
(ii) establishment of check-posts and infrastructure for the front line forest staff;
(iii) establishment and maintenance of fire lines;
(iv) wireless communications;
(v) construction of fencing, boundary marks or pillars, bridges and culverts, check dams, waterholes, trenches and pipelines;
(vi) establishment of zoo and safaris referred to in the
Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (53 of 1972), owned by the Government or any authority, in forest areas other than protected areas;
(vii) eco-tourism facilities included in the Forest
(viii) any other like purposes, which the Central
Government may, by order, specify. (2) The Central Government may, by order, specify the terms and conditions subject to which any survey, such as, reconnaissance, prospecting, investigation or exploration including seismic survey, shall not be treated as non-forest purpose.” 24th
21. As can be seen from Section 1-A, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 as amended in 2023, was to apply (i) to lands that had been declared or notified as a forest in accordance with provisions of the Indian Forest Act or under any other law for the time being in force; and (ii) to lands not covered under sub-clause (a) of Section 1-A but had been recorded in the Government records as a forest, on or after 25th October 1980.
22. However, what is important for our purposes is the proviso to Section 1-A(1)(b) which stipulates that the provisions of clause (b) of Section 1-A would not apply to any land which has changed from forest use to use for non-forest purposes on or before 12th December 1996 in pursuance of an order issued by any authority authorised by the State Government or Union Territory Administration in that behalf. The day of 12th December 1996 is of some significance because that is the date on which the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was rendered in T.N. Godavarman (supra).
23. The main thrust of the arguments canvassed on behalf of the Respondents was that since the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 stipulated that no State Government or other authority could make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing that any reserved forest, or any portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved, the remarks 24th entered in the impugned Mutation Entries to the effect that permission of the Central Government would be required for use of the said lands for nonforest purposes, is fully justified. It was also the case of the Respondents that the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 applied to all forests as understood in the dictionary meaning.
24. Having noted and given our anxious consideration to the contentions canvassed by the Respondents, even assuming for the sake of argument that the contentinos of the Respondents had any substance, the same cannot be countenanced. We say this because after amendment of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 [in 2023], by virtue of Section 1-A thereof, it is made clear that the said Act would apply (a) to lands that have been declared or notified as a forest in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Forest Act or under any other law for the time being in force, or (b) to any lands that are not covered under clause (a) but have been recorded in the Government record as a forest on or after 25th October 1980. It is not in dispute before us that the said lands of the Petitioner have not been declared or notified as a forest within the provisions of the Indian Forest Act or any other law for the time being in force. We say this because, admittedly, there is no declaration [on or before 30th August 1975] that the said lands are a forest under Section 34A of the Indian Forest Act, and neither is there any notification in relation 24th to the said lands under Section 35(1) thereof. This position is undisputed. Further, no notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act has been served in relation to the said lands. In other words, the said lands were never declared or notified as forests either under the Indian Forest Act or under the MPF Act. It is true that the said lands were recorded in the Government record as a forest pursuant to the directions that were given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of T. N. Godavarman (supra). However, from the record, we have ascertained that this was done not by actually visiting the said lands, but because the Government was of the opinion that since they had issued the notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act [but not served], the said lands were private forests.
25. Even otherwise, the proviso to clause (b) of Section 1-A itself contemplates that Section 1-A of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (as amended) would not apply to any land which has been changed from forest use to use for non-forest purposes on or before 12th December 1996 in pursuance of an order issued by any authority authorised by the State Government or Union Territory in that behalf. In other words, even assuming for the sake of argument, the said lands were notified as forest lands pursuant to direction given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman (supra), or that they were a “private forest” as understood within the 24th provisions of the MPF Act, the same would make no difference because admittedly the Collector, exercising powers under Section 22A of the MPF Act has passed an order in relation to the said lands as far back as on 26th September 1978. This order specifically declares that the said lands of the Petitioner shall cease to be a reserved forest and be deemed to be re-granted and re-vested in the owners. Hence, by virtue of the proviso to Section 1-A(1) (b), the said lands of the Petitioners would not be covered under the provisions of Section 1-A of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 [as amended]. We also seriously doubt whether the unamended provisions of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 would apply to lands which had been declared that they cease to be a reserved forest by virtue of an order passed under Section 22A of the MPF Act, when such orders are passed prior to the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 coming into force from 25th October 1980. However, we can dispose of this Writ Petition without going into this issue, and hence, we have not delved into this aspect any further.
26. We must mention that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Godrej Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (supra), in no uncertain terms held that if any land is to be termed as a “private forest” under Section 2(f) of the MPF Act, the conditions set out in said Section have to be complied with. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, while interpreting Section 2(f), has categorically held that it 24th is not enough for a notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act to be issued in relation to a particular land for it to be termed as a “private forest”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has clearly opined that under sub-clause (iii) of clause (f) of Section 2 of the MPF Act, the notice referred to therein is not only to be issued but also served on the owner of the land, before the land in question can be termed as a private forest. As mentioned earlier, in the facts of the present case, no notice under Section 35(3) was ever served [in relation to the said lands] for it to fall within the definition of the words “private forest” as understood under the MPF Act. Also, as mentioned earlier, there was no notification under Section 35(1) or a declaration under Section 34A of the Indian Forest Act notifying or declaring the said lands as a forest. Also, as mentioned earlier, even if we assume for the sake of argument that the said lands were notified as a forest pursuant to the directions given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in T.N. Godavarman (supra), the said lands cannot fall within the ambit of the Forest (Conversation) Act, 1980 [as amended], because the same have been explicitly excluded pursuant to the proviso appearing under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 1-A of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 [as amended].
27. Hence, looking at this matter from any angle, the remarks in the impugned Mutation Entries that for non-forest activities the landowners 24th would be required to obtain permission from the Central Government, are wholly unsustainable.
28. We must, before parting, mention that recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rohan Nahar (supra) has in fact taken a view that merely because a subsequent purchaser approaches the Court seeking relief that his particular land is not a forest, would not absolve the Government from establishing that the notice issued under Section 35(3) was not only issued but also served on the original land owners. In other words, the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rohan Nahar (supra) has opined that the ratio in Godrej Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (supra) would equally apply even in the case of subsequent purchasers.
29. In view of the foregoing discussion, the remarks made in the impugned Mutation Entries and the 7/12 extract of the said lands to the effect that permission of the Central Government would be required for using the said lands for non-forest activities are unsustainable. Hence, the said remarks are hereby directed to be quashed and the said remarks shall be deleted from the impugned Mutation Entries and the 7/12 extract. 24th
30. These directions shall be carried out by the Respondents Authorities within a period of 4 weeks from the date of uploading of this judgment on the High Court website.
31. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, and the Writ Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof. However, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, there shall be no order as to costs.
32. Though we have disposed of the above Writ Petition, we place it on board for reporting compliance on 29th January 2026.
33. This judgment will be Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax [AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.] 24th Designation: PA To Honourable Judge