Bombay High Court
Vijayalxmi Shrinivas Panditrao vs Deputy Conservator Of Forest ... on 23 August, 2023
Bench: N. J. Jamadar
2023:BHC-AS:24049
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
Sayali Upasani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.- 1284 OF 2020
Vijayalaxmi Shrinivas Panditrao ...Petitioner
Vs.
Deputy Conservator of Forest, Kolhapur ...Respondents
Division and Others
Mr. Rafique Dada, Senior Counsel i/b Mr. Yuvraj P.
Narvankar, for Petitioner.
Mr. C. D. Mali, AGP, for State- Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
CORAM:- N. J. JAMADAR, J.
RESERVED ON : 24th APRIL, 2023.
PRONOUNCED ON:- 23rd AUGUST, 2023
JUDGMENT:-
1) Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and, with the
consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, heard finally.
2) The petitioner takes exception to an order dated 20 th
August, 2019, passed by the Minister (Revenue) in RTS Second
Revision No. 3818 of 2018, whereby the Revision Application
preferred by the petitioner came to be rejected, affirming
the order passed by the Additional Divisional Commissioner,
Pune dated 13th October, 2017 which, in turn, had affirmed
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
the orders passed by the authorities below setting aside the
order of Tahasildar, Budargad, Dist. Kolhapur dated 25th May,
2015.
3) The Petition arises in the backdrop of the following facts:-
(a) Agricultural lands bearing Gat Nos.162/1-B, 162/2-B and
162/3 admeasuring 124 hectares situated at Mauje Minache,
Tal. Bhudargad, Dist. Kolhapur ("the subject lands") originally
belonged to one late Mr. Anantrao Narayanrao Panditrao, the
predecessor in title of the petitioner. In the year 1975, late
Anantrao had been served with a notice under Section 35 (3) of
Indian Forest Act, 1927 ("the Act, 1927"), calling upon to show
cause as to why the subject lands be not declared a protected
forest.
(b) Proceedings were, thereafter, initiated under the provisions
of Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975. Ultimately,
the proceedings under the Private Forest Act, 1975, culminated
in an order dated 6th September, 1991 in Appeal Nos.1 of 1990
and 2 of 1990. By the said judgment and order, the learned
President Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal ("MRT") modified the
order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer and declared that the
predecessor in title of the petitioner was entitled to retain 124
hectares i.e. 310 acre land, being the agricultural land and rest
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
of the land could be acquired by the Government after due
settlement of compensation and demarcation of boundaries.
(c) Petitioner claims the said judgment and order was passed
after providing an effective opportunity of hearing to the
concerned parties including the Forest Department. None
appealled the said order and, thus, the said order attained
finality. In fact, the order passed by the MRT was given effect to
by the authorities of the State. In execution of the said order,
Mutation Entry No.249 came to be certified. Lands bearing Gat
Nos.162/1 admeasuring 179.39 hectares was sub-divided into
162/1 admeasuring 117.60 hectares and 162/1B admeasuring
61.79 hectares, whereas land bearing Gat No. 162/2
admeasuring 109.93 hectares was divided into land bearing Gat
No. 162/2A admeasuring 52.60 hectares and Gat No. 162/2B
admeasuring 57.33 hectares. Consequently, lands bearing
Nos.162/1A admeasuring 117.60 hectares and 162/2A
admeasuring 52.60 hectares were mutated in the name of Forest
Department and land bearing Gat Nos.162/1B admeasuring
61.79 hectares and 162/2B admeasuring 57.33 hectares were
mutated in the name of late Anantrao. Possession receipts
evidencing the delivery of the aforesaid lands were also executed.
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
(d) Petitioner claims the aforesaid Mutation entries were never
challenged and the subject lands continued to retain the
character of agricultural lands. The petitioner had been in
peaceful possession and cultivation of the subject lands.
However, according to the petitioner, on 4 th May, 2006, without
any notice to the petitioner, Mutation entry Nos.710 and 744
were certified and the name of Government of Maharashtra
came to be shown in the holders column with an endorsement of
'reserved Forest', and the petitioner's name relegated to "other
rights" column. It transpired that the said Mutation was
effected by wrongly drawing support from the Government
Resolution dated 22nd February, 2005.
(e) Petitioner asserts the said Government Resolution dated
22nd February, 2005, governs only that land which has been
defined and/or declared as a Forest. Since the subject land had
been declared as an agricultural land by a competent judicial
Tribunal under the provisions of Private Forest Act, 1975, the
same could not have been designated as a reserved forest and
the land holder completely divested of all the legitimate rights,
which had accrued under the order of MRT, and that too
without any notice to the land holder.
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
(f) The petitioner thus approached Tahasildar, Bhudargad
under Section 155 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966
("the Code") for the correction of record of right in respect of the
subject land. After providing an opportunity of hearing the
Tahsildar, by an order dated 25 th May, 2015, ordered rectification
record of right of the subject land by deleting the entry of
'Government of Maharashtra - reserved forest' and restoring the
name of the original holders of the land to the
occupants/holders column, as per ME No.253.
(g) The Deputy Conservator of Forest and others carried the
matter in Appeal before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ajra,
Bhudargad, Sub-Division Gargoti. By a judgment and order
dated 17th February, 2016, in RTS Appeal No. 27 of 2015, the
Sub-Divisional Officer allowed the Appeal by setting aside the
order passed by the Tahsildar. The Sub-Divisional Officer was of
the view that in view of the instructions of the Central
Government neither the State Government nor any Officer of the
State Government had the power to delete an entry of forest in
the record of right/government record without prior permission
of the Central Government and, in the case at hand, no such
permission was obtained before deleting the entry of reserved
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
forest from the record of right and, therefore, the order passed
by Tahasildar was unsustainable.
(h) The petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the order of Sub-
Divisional Officer, Gargoti before the Collector, Kolhapur in
Appeal No. 349 of 2016, and before the Divisional Commissioner,
Pune in First Revision No.169 of 2017. Both the authorities were
of the view that the Sub-Divisional Officer had correctly set aside
the order of deleting the entry of reserved forest, passed by
Tahasildar.
4) Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed Second Revision before
the State Government. By the impugned judgment and order,
the Minister (Revenue) rejected the Revision holding, inter alia,
that though MRT had returned a finding that the land holder
was entitled to retain the subject land yet, the said decision was
rendered after the enactment of Conservation of Forest Act (25 th
October, 1980) and, therefore, even if it was assumed that the
entry of reserved forest was made in the record of right
unlawfully, yet, the State Government or its instrumentalities
were not empowered to delete the entry of reserved forest
without prior permission of the Central Government.
5) Being further aggrieved, the petitioner has invoked the
writ jurisdiction.
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
6) The substance of challenge in the Petition is that judicial
determination by MRT that subject lands were retainable
agricultural lands having attained finality, the subject lands
must be treated as agricultural lands and they could not have
been designated as a private forest under Private Forest Act,
1975. The instructions of the Central Government proscribing
conversion of forest land and the Government Resolution dated
22nd February, 2005, do not apply to the subject lands as they
had already been declared to be agricultural lands by the
competent judicial Tribunal. In any event, according to the
petitioner, stand of the Revenue Authorities including the State
Government that even an ex facie incorrect and unsustainable
entry in revenue record could not be corrected without prior
permission of the Central Government, is patently unjustifiable.
Hence, the petitioner has prayed to set aside all the impugned
orders, restoration of the order passed by the Tahasildar dated
25th May, 2015, restoring the name of the petitioner as holder of
the subject lands in accordance with ME No. 253.
7) An affidavit-in-reply is filed on behalf of the respondent
Nos. 1 and 2, contesting the petitioners claim. The thrust of the
defence of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, as manifested in the
affidavit-in-reply, is that in view of the order of the Supreme
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
Court dated 12th December, 1996 in Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of
1995, in the matter of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad Vs.
Union of India and Others, which has been referred in the
Circular of the Central Government dated 19 th March, 2004, any
correction in the entry of revenue record so as to change the
status of land from 'forest' to 'non forest', in effect, amounts to
de-reservation of the forest land covered thereunder and it would
require not only the permission of the Central Government in
accordance with the provisions contained in Section 2(i) of the
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, but also prior leave of the
Supreme Court.
8) Consistent with the said stand, respondent Nos. 1 and 2
contend that the said Circular dated 19 th March, 2014 was not
brought to the notice of, nor considered by the Tahasildar while
passing the order dated 25th May, 2015, whereby the entry of
reserved forest was ordered to be deleted. In the circumstances,
the authorities below were fully justified in taking the view that
the said order could not have been passed without obtaining
prior permission of the Central Government.
9) The petitioner has placed copies of relevant documents
under a further affidavit, especially, the copies of the orders
passed by the authorities under the Private Forest Act.
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
10) An additional affidavit-in-reply has also been filed on
behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 placing on record the
copies of relevant revenue proceedings and Mutation entries.
11) In the wake of aforesaid proceedings and material, I have
heard Mr. Rafique Dada, the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. C. D. Mali, the learned AGP for respondent
Nos. 1 and 2 at length. The learned Counsel took the Court
through the pleadings, the various proceedings under Private
Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975, and outcome thereof, especially
the order passed by MRT dated 6 th September, 1991, the
proceedings post the said order by the revenue authorities,
certification of the Mutation entries and the circular as well as
the Government of Maharashtra Resolution dated 14 th July,
2005.
12) Mr. Dada, assailed the very process of certification of
Mutation entry Nos. 710 and 744 on 4 th May, 2006, on the
premise that the said certification was carried out in violation of
fundamental principles of judicial process as well as natural
justice as the name of the petitioner/holders came to be deleted
from the record of right of the subject land without any notice to
the petitioner/holders much less an effective opportunity of
hearing. Mr. Dada, as a second limb of this submission would
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
urge that the Tahasildar, Bhudargad was justified in carrying
out the correction in the record of right by resorting to the
provisions contained in Section 155 of the Code, 1966, as the
controversy stood settled by the decision of MRT dated 6 th
September, 1991. Mr. Dada would further urge that the Sub-
Divisional Officer, Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority
under the Code, 1966 misdirected themselves in appreciating
the controversy at hand from the perspective of the restoration of
the forest land under Section 22A of the Private Forest Act, 1975.
This incorrect impression led to vitiation.
13) Resultantly, the authorities fell in error in applying the
provisions contained in the Government Circular dated 14 th July,
2005 which addresses the matter of updation of record of right
in the context of the restoration proceedings under Section 22A
of the Private Forest Act, 1975. Mr. Dada would urge that the
subject land do not fall within the definition of private forest
contained in Section 2 (f) of the Private Forest Act, 1975. In fact,
the subject land having been declared by a judicial
determination "not to be a forest", the provisions of the Private
Forest Act, 1975 were not at all attracted. According to Mr. Dada
what accentuates the situation is the fact that not only the
decision of MRT dated 6 th September, 1991, allowing the
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
retention of 124 hectares of land by the holders thereof attained
finality as it was never assailed by any party but also the said
decision was fully acted upon and implemented in as much as
the delivery of possession of the said land and the Mutation of
record of right to reflect the execution and implementation of the
said order are evidenced by the possession receipts and
Mutation Entry Nos. 249 and 253.
14) Lastly, Mr. Dada submitted that the subject land was never
recorded as a forest in any of the government record. Even for
correction of an entry, which was erroneously made ex parte, the
permission of the Central Government, as envisaged by Section
2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, cannot be insisted as
the jurisdictional condition of the land, in the first place, being a
forest cannot be said to have been established.
15) To buttress this submission, Mr. Dada placed a very strong
reliance on a Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case
of Sankalp Resorts Limited and Another Vs. State of
Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary and Others 1. Mr.
Dada submitted with tenacity that the controversy at hand is
squarely covered by the judgment in the case of Sankalp Resorts
(supra).
1 (2022) 3 Mah LJ 756
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
16) Mr. Mali, the learned AGP countered the submissions on
behalf of the petitioner with equal resoluteness. It was submitted
that the fact that original holder was served with a notice under
Section 35 (3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 is incontestible. In
that view of the matter, according to Mr. Mali, the provisions
contained in Sub Section (iii) of Clause (f) of Section 2, which
defines "private forest" under the Private Forest Act, 1975
squarely gets attracted and the submission on behalf of the
petitioner based on the decision of MRT 6 th September, 1991 is
of no avail. The fact that by the said decision of MRT, certain
land stood excluded from the operation of the ceiling limit as
portions of the land were found to be in possession of tenants,
does not advance the cause of the petitioner and, according to
Mr. Mali, there was never a declaration under Section 6 of the
Private Forest Act, 1975 that the subject lands were agricultural
lands.
17) Banking heavily upon the provisions contained in Sub
Section (3) of Section 3, which declares that all private forest
vested in the State Government under Sub Section (1) of Section
3 shall be deemed to be reserved forest within the meaning of
the Indian Forest Act, 1927, Mr. Mali strenuously submitted that
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of T. N. Godavarman
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
Thirumulkpad Vs. Union of India and Others 2 applies with full
force and vigor, and it is legally impermissible to correct the
record of right which has the effect of de-reserving a forest. Mr.
Mali made an endeavor to distinguish the decision of this Court
in the case of Sankalp Resorts (supra) on the ground that in the
said case the notice under Section 35 of the Forest Act, 1927
was not served on the land holders, and, upon an enquiry,
Collector had declared the subject matter of the said case was
an agricultural land. Since these two material facts do not find
place in the instant case, the ratio in the case of Sankalp
Resorts (supra) cannot be readily imported to the facts of the
instant case.
18) Mr. Dada joined the issue by canvassing a submission that
the aforesaid submissions on behalf of the State again loose
sight of the non applicability of the provisions of Section 22A of
the Private Forest Act, 1975 and also ignore the pivotal fact that
the cultivable land up to the ceiling limit was not at all covered
by the Private Forest Act, 1975. Mr. Dada made a painstaking
effort to demonstrate with reference to prayers and issues
involved in the case of Sankalp Resorts(supra) and draw home the
2 (1997) 2 SCC 267
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
point that the Sankalp Resorts (supra) is on all four with the
facts of the case at hand.
19) I have given a careful consideration to the aforesaid
submissions. On facts, there does not seem much controversy.
Indisputably notice under Section 35 (3) of the Indian Forest Act,
1927 was issued to the original land holder in the year 1975.
With the enforcement of Private Forest Act, 1975 with effect from
30th August, 1975, under Section 3 of the Private Forest Act,
1975, all the private forests stood vested in the State
Government. A dispute was raised under Section 6 of the Private
Forest Act as regards the area which stood excluded from the
preview of acquisition under Section 3 (1) of the Act, 1975 for
being the land under lawful cultivation of the occupant or tenant
and not in excess of the ceiling under Agricultural Land Ceiling
Act.
20) A determination was initially made by Sub-Divisional
Officer on 30th December, 1985. The matter was carried in
Appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. By a
judgment and order dated 17 th November, 1988, the Designated
Member MRT was persuaded to allow the Appeal and remand
the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer to investigate the fact of
partition of the subject land in the year 1960 and its effect upon
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
the holdings of the co-sharers; the appellant and respondent
Nos. 3 to 6 therein.
21) Post remand, Sub-Divisional Officer conducted enquiry
under Section 6 of the Private Forest Act, 1975. Being aggrieved
by the said determination Mrs. Ramadevi Anantrao Pandit
preferred an Appeal under Section 13 of the Private Forest Act,
1975 before MRT. By a judgment and order dated 6 th September,
1991, the learned Member MRT allowed the Appeal by modifying
the order of Sub-Divisional Officer and declared that the
agricultural land admeasuring 124 hectares, i.e. 310 acres is
allowed to be retained by landlords and rest of the land was
liable to be acquired by the Government. The said determination
by MRT has not been challenged and thus attained finality.
Indisputably, the determination by MRT was implemented and
Mutation Entry Nos. 249 and 253 came to be certified and
possession of the respective portions were delivered.
22) In the backdrop of the aforesaid uncontroverted facts,
justifiability and legality of the impugned order is required to be
tested. Evidently, the Mutation entry Nos. 710 and 744 were
certified on the basis of the Government Circular dated 14 th July,
2005, with reference to an order of this Court dated 22 nd June,
2005. The said circular, inter alia, provided that the case where
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
Section 22A proceedings (restoration of forest land to the
holders) were not concluded on the date of enforcement of Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 i.e. 25th October, 1982 or those
proceedings were concluded but the sanction/approval of the
Central Government was yet not obtained, an entry of
"Government of Maharashtra - reserved forest" be made in the
occupier/holder's column and the name of the owner be
recorded in the "other rights" column. Pursuant to this
Government directive, it seems, Mutation Entry Nos.710 and 744
came to be effected. Subsequent proceedings before the Revenue
Authorities to correct the aforesaid Mutation Entries and
unsuccessful challenge thereto upto the State Government are
already noted above, and need no reiteration.
23) To start with the statutory provisions. Indian Forest Act,
1927 was enacted to consolidate the law relating to forest, the
transit of forest produce, and duty leviable on timber and other
forest produce. Chapter-V of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 relates
to the control over forests and lands not being the property of
the government. Under Sub Section (1) of Section 35, the State
Government was empowered to regulate or prohibit acts
enumerated therein in any forest or waste land. Sub Section (2)
of Section 35 empowered the State Government to construct at
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
its own expense, any such work as it thinks fit in or upon any
forest or waste land. Sub Section (3) of Section 35 mandated
issue of notice to the owner of such forest or land to show cause
why such notification as envisaged by Sub Section (1) or the
work be not issued or carried out.
24) In the year 1975, the State legislature passed
Maharashtra Private Forest Act, 1975 and it was brought into
force on 30th August, 1975. Post certain amendments, the Private
Forest Act defines a "Forest" as under:-
[(c-i) ''forest'' means a tract of land covered with trees
(whether standing, felled,found or otherwise), shrubs,
bushes, or woody vegetation, whether of natural growth
or planted by human agency and existing or being
maintained with or without human effort, or such tract
of land on which such growth is likely to have an effect
on the supply of timber, fuel, forest produce, or grazing
facilities, or on climate, stream flow,protection of land
from erosion, or other such matters and includes--
(i) land covered with stumps of trees of forest ;
(ii) land which is part of a forest or lies within it or was
part of a forest or was lying within a forest on the 30th
day of August 1975 ;
(iii) such pasture land, water-logged or cultivable or non-
cultivable land, lying within or linked to forest, as may be
declared to be forest by the State Government ;
(iv) forest land held or let for purpose of agriculture or for
any purposes ancillary thereto ;
(v) all the forest produce therein, whether standing,
felled, found or otherwise...."
25) "Private forest" is defined under Clause (f) as under :-
(f) "private forest'' means any forest which is not the
property of Government and includes,--
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
(i) any land declared before the appointed day to be a
forest under section 34Aof 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..."
26) The crucial provision which constitutes the substratum of
the State's case of the vesting of the private forest in the State
Government contained in Section 3, reads as under:-
"3. Vesting of Private forests in State Government:-
3 (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
threto,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
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
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 reservedd forests within the meaning of the
Forest Act...."
27) Section 4 enumerates steps to be taken by Government on
acquisition of private forest. Section 5 enables the State
Government to take over possession of private forests. Sections 6
to 19 deal with settlement of disputes, determination of amount
to be paid to the holders of private forest, deduction of amount
of encumbrances and expedition of rights of other persons,
Appeals, Revision etc. Section 22A, which came to be inserted by
Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) (Amendment) Act,
1978 provides for restoration of forest land to owner in certain
circumstances. Finally Section 24 repealed Section 34A, 35,
36A, 36B, 36C and 37 of the Act, 1927 on and from appointed
date i.e. 30th August, 1975.
28) For the purpose of determination of controversy at hand, it
may be necessary to note the phraseology of Section 6 which
provides for settlement of disputes and the relevant part of
Section 22A empowering the Collector to restore forest land to
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
owner upon fulfillment of certain conditions. They read as
under:-
"6. Settlement of disputes:-
Where any question arises as to whether or not any
forest is a private forest, or whether or not any
private forest or portion thereof has vested in the
State Government or whether or not any dwelling
house constructed in a forest stands acquired under
this Act, the Collector shall decide the question, and
the decision of the Collector shall, subject to the
decision of the tribunal in appeal which may be
preferred to the tribunal within sixty days from the
date of the decision of the Collector, or the order of
the State Government under section 18, be final.
........
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 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..."
29) Evidently, the definitions of "forest" and "private forest" are
expansive. Nonetheless, to qualify for acquisition and vesting in
the State Government under the provisions of Section 3 (1), the
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
land in question must fall within any of the sub clauses of
Clause (f) of Section 2, which defines, "private forest". Sub
Section (2) of Section 3 of the Private Forest Act, 1975 is of
material significance. Sub Section (2) of Section 3 expressly
excludes the vesting under Sub Section (1) of the land comprised
in a private forest as is held by an occupant or tenant and is
lawfully under cultivation on the appointed day to the extent it is
not in excess of the ceiling provided under the Agricultural
Lands Ceiling Act.
30) These provisions give rise to two primary issues. One,
whether the land qualifies the designation of a "forest" or
"private forest". Two, whether the land being under cultivation
and below the ceiling limit prescribed under the Agricultural
Land Ceiling Act is excluded from the acquisition under Section
3 (1). Herein lies the utility of the dispute resolution mechanism
provided in Section 6 of the Private Forest Act, 1975. Under
Section 6, the Collector is enjoined to decide the disputes as to
whether or not any forest is a private forest or whether or not
any private forest or portion thereof has vested in the State
Government and the decision of the Collector, subject to the
decision of the Tribunal in Appeal, is made final.
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
31) The Constitutional validity of the Maharashtra Private
Forest Act, 1975 was challenged before this Court. A five Judge
Bench of this Court in the case of J. C. Waghmare and Others
Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others 3 upheld the
constitutionality of the provisions of the Private Forest Act, 1975,
especially Section 3. The Full Bench, in the process, expounded
the import of the definition of 'Private Forest' under Section 2 (f)
and the remit of the determination by the Collector under
Section 6 of the Act. The Full Bench, inter alia, observed as
under:-
"30. Turning to the definition of 'private forest' given in
Section 2 (f), it will appear clear that even this definition
consists of two parts; the first part indicating what the
expression 'means' according to the Legislature and the
second part indicating what the expression 'includes'
according to the Legislature. In the first part 'private
forest' has been defined to mean 'any forest which is not
the property of the Government' while under the
inclusive part six items or heads mentioned in Sub-
clauses (i) to (vi) have been included in the definition. It
is thus clear that Sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iv) of Section
2(f) deal with declared, adjudicated or admitted
instances of forests. Sub-clause (iii) of Section 2(f) no
doubt seeks to cover land in respect of which merely a
notice has been issued to the owner of a private forest
under Section 35(3) and his objections may have
remained unheard till 30-8-1975 as Section 35 has
stood repealed on the coming into force of the
Acquisition Act. Here also, as in the case of owners of
land falling under Sub-clause (iii) of Section 2(c-1), his
objections, if any, including his objection that his land
cannot be styled as forest at all can be heard and
3 AIR 1978 Bombay 119
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
disposed of under Section 6 of the Acquisition Act, and
this position was conceded by Counsel appearing for
the State of Maharashtra."
............
32. In the first place, the scheme clearly shows that
under Section 3 all private forests vest in the State
Government and since both the expressions --'forest' as
well as 'private forest' --have been defined in the Act
what vests in the State Government is 'private forest' as
per Section 2 (f) and in order to be 'private forest' under
Section 2 (f) it must be 'forest' under Section 2 (c-1) in
the first instance and read in this manner the
expression 'all the private forests' occurring in Section 3
will include 'forest produce.' it is not possible to accept
the argument that the word 'forest' occurring in the
composite expression 'private forest' should not be given
the meaning which has been assigned to it in Section 2
(c-1). Moreover, as stated earlier, the scheme itself
suggests that what vests in the State under Section 3
are private forests as defined by Section 2 (f) but such
private forests must in the first instance be 'forests' as
defined by Section 2 (c-1) and read in that manner the
forest produce would vest in the State Government
along with the private forest under Section 3 of the Act.
32) The Full Bench of this Court thus held that Sub-clauses
(i), (ii) and (iv) of Section 2(f) deal with declared, adjudicated or
admitted instances of forests. Sub-clause (iii) of Section 2(f)
though covers the land in respect of which only a notice has
been issued to the owner under Section 35(3) of the Indian
Forest Act, 1927, yet his objections, including his objection that
his land cannot be styled as forest at all, can be heard and
disposed of under Section 6 of the Private Forest Act, 1975.
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
33) The Full Bench further held that the scheme of the Private
Forest Act itself suggests that what vests in the State under
Section 3 are private forests as defined by Section 2 (f) but such
private forests must in the first instance be, 'forests' as defined
by Section 2 (c-1).
34) The aforesaid exposition of law would indicate that the
inquiry envisaged under Section 6 of the Private Forest Act, 1975
would subsume in its fold the primary question as to whether
the land is "forest" in the first instance; whether it satisfies the
description of "private forest"; whether any private forest or a
part thereof is liable to be acquired under Section 3 (1) and the
last question would also hinge upon the determination as to
whether a portion of land is excluded by operation of Sub
Section (2) of Section 3 in respect of land under cultivation not
exceeding the ceiling on holdings.
35) The aforesaid view of this Court in the case of J. C.
Waghmare (supra) attained finality and in the case of Godrej
and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited and Another Vs.
State of Maharashtra and Others4 , the Supreme Court after
referring to the aforeextracted view expressly recorded that the
said view has been accepted by the State of Maharashtra and
4 (2014) 3 SCC 430
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
has now attained finality. In the case of Godrej and Boyce
(supra) , the Supreme Court also observed that it was quite clear
from a reading of J. C. Waghmare (supra) that the, "means and
includes" definition of 'forest' in Section 2 (c-i) of the Private
Forest Act, 1975 does not detract or take away from the primary
meaning of the word, "forest" and the Supreme Court was in
agreement with the said view.
36) At this juncture, recourse to the decision of this Court in
the case of Sankalp Resorts (supra), on which a very strong
reliance was placed by Mr. Dada, would be apposite. In the said
case pursuant to a communication by Deputy Conservator of
Forest, the Revenue Officer had made an entry of "forest land" in
the record of right of the subject land. Upon a dispute being
raised by the owner before the Collector under Section 6 of the
Private Forest Act, 1975, it was held that the subject land was
not private forest and a draft speaking order was prepared
awaiting permission of the Central Government under Section 2
of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Since no action was taken
despite relentless persuasion, the land owner approached this
Court seeking inter alia a direction to the Revenue Authorities to
delete the entry of forest in the record of right. It was the stand
of the State Government that despite a declaration by Collector
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
that the subject land was not a private forest, permission of the
Government of India under Section 2 of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 was required and until such
permission had been granted, the land would be deemed to be
forest.
37) In the backdrop of the aforesaid controversy, a Division
Bench of this Court after a reference to the relevant provisions of
Private Forest Act, 1975 and Section 2 of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 enunciated the law as under:-
"30. Section 2 (c-i) of the State Act defines 'forest' and
the decision of the Collector, or the order of the State
Government under Section 18, be final "definition is
self-explanatory. Section 2(f) of the State Act defines
'private forest' which relates to the property not
belonging to the Government and includes any
land/forest which is so declared under Section 34A or
in respect of which notification under Section 35(1) is
in force or in respect of which notice under Section
35(3) has been issued or in respect of which
notification under Section 38 has been issued. Thus,
on the appointed day i.e. 30.08.1975, the date of
coming into force of the State Act, if any proceedings
under the provisions of Sections 34A, 35(1), 35(3) or
38 of the Act of 1927 are pending or in force then such
land or forest is defined as 'private forest'. The effect of
pendency of any such proceeding under the Act of
1927 on the appointed day is given in Section 3 of the
State Act which provides for vesting of private forests in
the State Government on the appointed day. It is
pertinent to note that Section 3(1) states that all
private forests in the State shall stand acquired and
vest in the State Government which implies that such
lands / forests have to be covered by the definition of
'private forest' in Section 2(f) of the State Act. However,
in the event if any owner / person is aggrieved and a
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
question arises as to whether or not a forest is a
private forest or any private forest or portion thereof
has vested in the State Government, then under
Section 6 of the State Act such owner / person can file
an appeal to the Collector and dispute the status of the
land as to whether or nor the said land is forest /
private forest or whether or not any private forest or
portion thereof has vested in the State Government.
........
33. Section 2 of the Central Act refers to restrictions
on the de- reservation of forests or use of forest land
for non-forest purpose. Perusal of this Section shows
that the said provision applies to forests or use of
forest land for non-forest purpose and clearly implies
that the land in question to which the said provision
applies should be reservedd forests or forest land or
any portion of forest land. The said Section states that
no State Government shall make except with the prior
approval of the Central Government any order
directing any reservedd forest or any forest land or any
portion thereof to be dealt with or de-reservedd. It is
implicit by the bare reading of the Section that the said
provision applies in the case of reservedd forest /
forest land or any portion thereof. In the present case
Respondent No.2 - Collector by his draft speaking
order dated 13.11.2011 has conclusively determined
that the said lands are not forest lands. This
determination is pursuant to the statutory inquiry as
contemplated under the provisions of Section 6 of the
State Act. This determination has been done on
13.01.2011. The State Government has not filed any
Appeal challenging the decision of the Collector within
the prescribed period of sixty days before the Tribunal
and as such the decision of the Collector in respect of
the said lands has become final. The said lands
therefore cannot be deemed to be forest land /
reservedd forest or any portion thereof as forest for the
purpose of obtaining prior approval of the Central
Government for its de- reservation and use for non-
forest purpose under the Central Act.
34. In the above backdrop it is stated that for the
provisions of Section 2 of the Central Act to come into
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
force, a jurisdictional fact that the land in question is a
'forest' needs to exist. If the land in question is 'not a
forest', then the provisions of Section 2 of the Central
Act cannot be invoked or made applicable. Section 2 of
the Central Act come into play only if the subject land
is a forest and not otherwise. In the present case, the
decision of the Collector under the provisions of
Section 6 of the State Act adjudicating that the said
lands are 'not private forest' having become final, the
State Government cannot invoke the provisions of
Section 2 of the Central Act for seeking de-reservation
of the said lands.
......
36. The scheme of Section 6 of the State Act requires
the Collector to decide any question as to whether or
not any forest is a private forest or whether or not any
private forest or portion thereof has vested in the State
Government. In the present case, a detailed speaking
order of the Collector has conclusively determined and
declared the said lands as 'not private forest' under the
provisions of Section 6 of the State Act. The decision is
on the basis of the findings alluded to and reproduced
hereinabove with reference to the provisions of the Act
of 1927, the State Act and the Central Act. The
categorical findings given by the Collector in arriving at
the conclusion that the said lands are 'not private
forest' with reference to the provisions of the Act of
1927 and the State Act do not leave any doubt in our
mind that the said lands are not forest.
.....
40. We have noted that the said Mutation entry was
effected with reference to the State Act. The Petitioners
therefore filed the statutory appeal seeking
adjudication under the provisions of Section 6 of the
State Act. However, once the Respondent No.2 -
Collector has declared the said lands as 'not private
forest' under Section 6 of the State Act, the
applicability of the Central Act to the said lands does
not arise. As seen, the said lands have been certified
as 'agricultural lands' in the various revenue records
and as such under Section 3(2) of the State Act, on
this count also they cannot be deemed to be 'forest
land' much less private forest land. Save and except
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
the unilateral Mutation entry, admittedly there is no
other evidence or material placed on record by the
Respondents to classify, certify or notify the said lands
as 'forest land'. The reasoned decision/order passed
by the Respondent No.2 - Collector declaring the said
lands as 'not private forest' under the State Act
therefore decides the status of the said lands.
41. Under Section 2 of the Central Act the approval of
the Central Government is necessary only if the land
is a forest and if the State Government passes an
order directing that any reservedd forest shall cease to
be reservedd; or any forest land is used for non-forest
purpose; or any forest land is assigned to a private
person or a non- government organization; or any
forest land may be cleared of trees or re-afforestation.
Thus it is clear that for the provisions of Section 2 of
the Central Act to apply, it it necessary in the first
place that the said lands have to be 'forest land'.
However if the said lands are not forest land then the
provisions of Section 2 of the Act of 1980 are
inapplicable and thus the permission sought by the
Respondent No.2 - Collector from the Central
Government with respect to its decision of declaration
of the said lands as 'not private forest' is wholly
illegal."
(emphasis supplied).
38) Repelling the contention that despite the determination by
the Collector under Section 6 of the Act that the subject land is
not a private forest, it continues to be a forest till the Central
Government grants permission under Section 2 of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980, the Division Bench, inter alia,
observed as under:-
"42. The Respondents' submission that the Collector
has merely determined the said lands as 'not private
forest' but the said lands still continue to be 'forest' is
also unacceptable due to the following reasons:
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
.......
vi. The State's argument, if accepted, would lead to
an absurd and anomalous situation, and will defeat
the scheme of the State Act. A 'forest' belonging to a
private person is a 'private forest', and thus, when a
private party objects to his land being declared a
'private forest', he is also objecting to it being declared
a 'forest'. It cannot be that even when a party has
succeeded under Section 6 of the State Act, his
private land will continue to be a 'forest'. In any event,
in this case, the Collector, acting within his
jurisdiction, has on merits held that the said lands
are 'not private forest'. This finding is final and binds
the State...."
(emphasis supplied).
39) The aforesaid pronouncement of the Division Bench
enunciates in empathetic terms that once the Collector in
exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 6 of Private Forest Act,
1975 declares that the land is not a forest, the question of
applicability of the provisions of Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
does not arise. The Division Bench has also adverted to an
incongruous situation which may be arise where the Competent
Authority has made the determination and yet the permission of
the Central Government is insisted upon.
40) Mr. Mali, the learned AGP would however urge that the
said determination by the MRT in the instant case has been
made without adverting to the provisions contained in Section 2
of the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. A very strong reliance
was placed on the observations of the Supreme Court in the
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
case of T.N. Godavarman Thirumulkpad Vs. Union of India and
Others5, to bolster up the submission that notwithstanding such
determination by MRT allowing the land holder to retain 124
hectares of land, the character of the land continues to be that
of a "forest". Paragraph 4 of the said order reads as under:-
"4. The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was enacted
with a view to check further deforestation which
ultimately results in ecological imbalance. The Act
has made provisions for the conservation of forests
and for matters connected therewith must apply to
all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or
classification thereof. The word 'forest' must be
understood according to its dictionary meaning.
This description covers all statutorily recognised
forests, whether designated as reservedd, protected
or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(i) of the
Forest Conservation Act. The term 'forest land',
occurring in Section 2, will not only include "forest"
as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any
area recorded as forest in the Government record
irrespective of the ownership or classification
thereof. This aspect has been made abundantly
clear in the decisions of this Court in Ambica
Quarry Works Vs. State of Gujarat, Rural Litigation
and Entitlement Kendra Vs. State of U.P. and
recently in the order dated 29 th November, 1996
(Supreme Court Monitoring Committee Vs.
Mussoorjie Dehradun Development Authority). The
earlier decision of this Court in State of Bihar V.
Banshi Ram Modi has, hterefore, to be understood
in the light of these subsequent decisions. We
consider it necessary to reiterate this settled
position emerging from the decisions of this Court
to dispel the doubt, if any, in the perception of any
state Government or authority. This has become
necessary also because of the stand taken on
behalf of the State of Rajasthan, even at this late
stage, relating to permissions granted for mining in
5 (1997) 2 SCC 267
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
such area which is clearly contrary to the decisions
of this Court. It is reasonable to assume that any
State Government which as failed to appreciate the
correct position in law so far, will forthwith correct
its stance and take necessary remedial measures
without any further delay.
5. We further direct as under:
I-General
1. In view of the meaning of the word "forest" in the
Act, it is obvious that prior approval of the Central
Government is required for any non-forest activity
within the area of any "forest". In accordance with
Section 2 of the Act, all on-going activity within any
forest in any State throughout the country, without
the prior approval of the Central Government, must
cease forthwith. It is, therefore, clear that the
running of saw mills of any kind including veneer or
ply-wood mills, and mining of any mineral are non-
forest purposes and are, therefore, not permissible
without prior approval of the Central Government.
Accordingly, any such activity is prima facie
violation of the provisions of the Forest
Conservation Act, 1980. Every State Government
must promptly ensure total cessation of all such
activities forthwith."
41) The aforesaid enunciation of law and the submissions
canvassed on behalf of the parties, in the facts of the case at
hand, warrant determination of the moot question as to whether
despite the determination by MRT that the predecessor in title of
the petitioner was entitled to retain 124 hectares of land, the
subject land can still be designated as a reservedd forest? For an
answer the factual position needs to be re-adverted to. First and
foremost, it is incontrovertible that the order passed by MRT
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
dated 6th September, 1991 has attained finality. Secondly, the
action seems to have been taken by the Revenue Authorities on
the basis of the Government Circular dated 14 th July, 2005.
Thirdly, in the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer setting
aside the order passed by the Tahasildar deleting Mutation
Entry 744 the Sub-Divisional Officer referred to a Government of
India letter dated 19th March, 2014. In response to Government
of Maharashtra's letter dated 13th February, 2014 certain
clarification as to whether for the correction of entries, whereby
certain non forest lands have been inadvertently recorded as
forest in the revenue record the provisions of the Forest
(Conservation) Act, 1980 would be attracted, the Ministry of
Environment and Forest clarified that correction of entry in the
revenue record to change status of a land record as "forest" to
"non-forest" in effect amounts to de-reservation of a forest land.
The same thus required not only prior approval of the Central
Government in accordance with the provisions of Section 2 (1) of
the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980, but also prior leave of the
Supreme Court. It would be contextually relevant to note that in
the impugned order the Minister (Revenue) has also referred to
the said letter dated 19th March, 2014 and observed that even if
it was assumed that Mutation entry No.744 was made in an
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
unlawful manner yet prior permission of the Central
Government was required to correct the said error.
42) Whether aforesaid approach is justifiable ? Answer to this
question is required to be explored in two parts. One, the
applicability of the Government Circular dated 14th July, 2005.
From perusal of the said circular, it becomes clear that the
circular delineates the manner in which the entries in the record
of right in respect of, "forest" are to be made where orders of
restoration of the forest land have been passed under Section
22A of the Maharashtra Private Forest Act, 1975. The Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Arjun Sitaram Nitanwar
Vs. Tahsildar, District Thane and Others 6 after perusal of the
circular issued by the State Government to all the Divisional
Commissioners and District Collectors held that directions
contained in said circular are in relation to the entry made in
the revenue records on the basis of order of restoration of the
lands passed under Section 22A of the Act, 1975.
43) In the case at hand, the applicability of the aforesaid
directives of the State Government contained in the Government
Circular dated 14th July, 2005 is not made out. As noted above,
the petitioner or the predecessor in title of the petitioner never
6 (2015) 6 Mah. LJ 634
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
applied for restoration of the forest land under Section 22A of
the Act, 1975, on the premise that on account of acquisition of
the forest land, the total holding of the land owner became less
than 12 hectares on the appointed date or that total holding of
the land owner was already less than 12 hectares on the day
immediately preceding the appointed date. On the contrary, the
challenge by the predecessor in title of the petitioner to the
designation of the private forest was on the ground that the
determination of the ceiling under Section 5 of the Maharashtra
Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1961 was erroneous. That was
clearly a challenge to the extent of acquisition covered by Sub
Section (2) of Section 3 of the Private Forest Act, 1975. Thus the
initial action of the authorities to make an entry in the revenue
record of "State of Maharashtra- reserved Forest" on the basis of
state Government directives cannot be sustained.
44) Two, the support and sustenance sought to be drawn to
the impugned action on the basis of the proscription contained
in Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 and
clarificatory letter dated 19th March, 2014 now merits
consideration.
45) The applicability of the provisions contained in Section 2 of
the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 is undoubtedly required to be
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
considered keeping in view the purpose and object of both
Private Forests Act, 1975 and the Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
The Maharashtra Private Forest Act was enacted to, inter alia,
acquire private forests in the State of Maharashtra generally for
conserving their material resources and protecting them 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 ecological balance in the public interest. The
legislature found it expedient to enact such a measure which
had the trappings of acquisition of land as the private forests in
the state were found to be generally in highly degraded and over-
exploited state. It was considered necessary to arrest the
depletion of the forest cover in the state.
46) The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was enacted with a view
to check further deforestation which ultimately results in
ecological imbalance. Forest Conservation Act, 1980 thus made
provision for conservation of forest irrespective of nature of the
ownership or classification thereof. In furtherance of the
aforesaid objects, the definition of "forest" has received a
purposive interpretation. The courts are often called upon to
weigh a balance between the process of development, on one
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
hand, and the ecological imperative of preserving environment,
on the other.
47) On the aforesaid touchstone, reverting to the facts of the
case, the determination, in my considered view, must be based
on the primary question as to whether the subject land stood
vested under Section 3 (1) of the Maharashtra Private Forest Act,
1975. Since cultivated land upto ceiling is excluded by Sub
Section (2) of Section 3 of the Private Forest Act, 1975, it cannot
be said that the cultivable land which fell within the ambit of
Sub Section (2) of Section 3 also stood vested in the State
Government as a part of private forest on the appointed date i.e.
30th October, 1975. The nature of the determination under
Section 6 of the Private Forest Act, 1975, adverted to above, also
bears upon the issue. The aspect as to whether a portion of the
land has or has not vested in the State Government as the
private forest, squarely falls within the province of the authority
of the Collector, as envisaged by Section 6 of the Private Forest
Act, 1975. That determination, it must be noted, relates to the
date of vesting of the private forest under Section 3 (1) of the Act,
1975. J. C. Waghmare (supra) in terms clarifies that such
vesting under Section 3 (1) is not final and is subject to the
adjudication by the Collector under Section 6 of the Act, 1975.
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
48) If this is the position in law, and on facts it is
incontrovertible that the determination made by the MRT that
the owners were entitled to ratain 124 hectares of land has
attained finality, it would be rather difficult to accede to the
submission that the said determination by MRT does not bind
the State Government.
49) I have perused the order passed by the MRT in Forest
Appeal No. 1 of 1990. The learned President MRT has, inter alia,
adverted to the panchanama dated 14 th April, 1979, which
indicated that 374 acres and 11 gunthas land was shown in
possession of the landlords and tenants as agricultural land and
that the record of right of Gat Nos. 162/2, 162/3 and 161/1
indicated that the lands were being cultivated by the landlords
in the year 1982-1983 to 1984-1985 personally and paddy,
groundnut and other crops were taken therein. The decision by
MRT to exclude 124 hectares of land, based on the attendant
facts and the entitlement of co-sharers, thus cannot be said to
be without any material. The submission of Mr. Mali that there
is no determination under Section 6 that the subject lands were
agricultural lands does not merit acceptance in the light of clear
findings of the learned President MRT. In any event, the said
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
decision has attained finality and the legality, propriety and
correctness thereof is now not open to challenge.
50) The conspectus of the aforesaid consideration is that, in
the totality of the circumstances, the determination by MRT sets
the issue at rest that the subject land, which was allowed to be
retained by the land owners (as being below the ceiling under
the Agricultural Lands Ceiling Act, 1961), did not vest in the
State Government under Section 3 (1) as to that extent the said
land stood excluded under Sub Section (2) thereof. Secondly and
indisputably the decision of MRT was implemented and executed
to the fullest with Mutation Entry Nos. 249 and 253 being
certified on the basis of the said decision and possession
delivered. In this backdrop, it was not open for the revenue
authorities to re-open the issues concluded by the decision of
MRT in an indirect manner by deleting the names of the owners
from the holders/occupiers column and substituting the name
of 'State of Maharashtra reserved forest'. To sum up, it could not
be established that the subject land continued to be "forest"
under the Private Forest Act, 1975.
51) If viewed through the aforesaid perspective, the Division
Bench judgment in the case of Sankalp Resorts (supra) governs
the facts of the case at hand with equal force; the change being
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
that in the instant case the determination by MRT was years
before certification of Mutation entry No. 744 whereas in the
case of Sankalp Resorts (supra) a dispute was raised under
Section 6 after the entry of forest was made in the record of right
and the decision that the land was not private forest was
rendered subject to the permission of the Central Government.
The substratum, however, remains the same - the subject lands
never vested in the State Government under Section 3 (1) of the
Private Forest Act, 1975 and, therefore, provisions contained in
Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 were not
attracted.
52) I am, therefore, persuaded to hold that the Mutation entry
No.744 having been entered wholly unjustifiably, the insistence
of the authorities on the prior permission of the Central
Government under Section 2 of the Forest Conservation Act,
1980, on the basis of the clarificatory letter dated 19 th March,
2014 is unsustainable. The Petition, therefore, deserves to be
allowed. Resultantly, the name of the State Government is
required to be deleted and the position restored as it obtained
prior to certification of Mutation entry No. 744.
53) Before parting it needs to be clarified that this Court has
examined the issues raised in this Petition only in the context of
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
the challenge to certification of Mutation entry No. 744 and
refusal of the authorities to correct the record of right in view of
the decision of MRT dated 6 th September, 1991. This Court has
not delved into the aspect of applicability of the other provisions
of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, on any other ground. This
determination is confined to the extent that the subject land did
not vest in the State Government under Section 3 (1) of the Act,
1975 in view of the exclusion of the cultivated land to the extent
indicated in sub Section (2) of Section 3, as determined by MRT.
54) Hence, the following order.
ORDER
i) Subject to the aforesaid clarification, the
Petition stands allowed in terms of prayer
Clause "a".
ii) The decision of Tahasildar in RTS No. 203/15
dated 25th May, 2015 stands restored.
iii) Necessary entries in the revenue record in
terms of the aforesaid order of Tahasildar dated
25th May, 2015 be made within a period of one
month from today.
iv) Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
7-WP-1284-20.DOC
v) In the circumstances of the case there shall be
no order as to costs.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
At this stage, Mr. Mali, the learned AGP seeks stay to the
execution and implementation of this judgment.
Mr. Narvankar, the learned Counsel for the petitioner
opposes the prayer.
Having regard to the nature of the controversy involved in
the Petition, execution and operation of this judgment is stayed
for a period of eight weeks.
In the meanwhile, the interim protection which was
granted to the petitioner shall continue to operate.
[N. J. JAMADAR, J.]
