Bombay High Court
Jabs International Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of Maharashtra, Through The Chief ... on 25 July, 2025
Author: B. P. Colabawalla
Bench: B. P. Colabawalla
2025:BHC-AS:31731-DB
20.wp.706.24.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 706 OF 2024
M/s Jabs International Pvt Ltd .. Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors .. Respondents
Mr. Atul Rajadhyaksha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nishant
Tripathi, Pranav Vaidya i/b M. Tripathi & Co, Advocates for the
Petitioners.
Mr. K. S. Thorat 'B' Panel Counsel, for the State/Respondent
Nos.1, 4 ,5 and 6.
Mr. Prashant Chawan, Senior Advocate with Poonam Seth i/b
Navdeep Vora & Associates, Advocates for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Mr. S. D. Valvi, Assistant Conservator of Forest, Thane (L. R. P. &
Wildlife) is present.
Digitally signed
ANJALI by ANJALI
TUSHAR ASWALE
TUSHAR
ASWALE 15:05:40 +0530
Date: 2025.07.29
CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA &
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
DATE: JULY 25, 2025
ORAL JUDGMENT: [ PER B. P. COLABAWALLA, J. ]
1. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of parties,
Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.
JULY 25, 2025
20.wp.706.24.docx
2. The above Writ Petition has been filed seeking the following
reliefs:-
"a. That that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the writ of
certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records and
proceedings pertaining to Plot No. A-350/1 and upon its
scrutiny, be further pleased to quash and set aside the letter
dated 28th September 2015 issued by the Respondent No.2
informing the Petitioners that the said land (Plot No. A-350/1)
is recorded as "the Government Forest".
a(i). That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate
writ, order or direction calling for the records and proceedings
of the Appeal of the MIDC before the Ld. Ld Sub-Divisional
Officer, Thane (Kra. TD/Te-6/Kha.Van/SR-01/2025) and upon
examining the validity of the order dated 12 th February 2025
(Exhibit K to the Petition) passed by the Ld. Sub-Divisional
Officer, Thane, be pleased to quash and set aside the same;
b. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue the writ of
mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order and direction directing the Respondent
No.2 to (a) execute and register the Lease Deed thereby vesting
into the Petitioners Plot No. A-350/1, TTC Industrial Area,
Mahape, Navi Mumbai-400 710, (b) to hand over to the
Petitioners possession of Plot No.A-350/1, TTC Industrial Area,
Mahape, Navi Mumbai- 400 710.
c. That in the event of this Hon'ble Court not being pleased to
grant prayer clause (b) supra, be pleased to the issuance of writ
of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate, writ, order and direction directing the Respondent
No.2 to (a) execute and register the Lease Deed thereby vesting
into the Petitioners Plot No. A-829, TTC Industrial Area,
Mahape, Navi Mumbai- 400 710, (b) to hand over to the
JULY 25, 2025
Aswale
20.wp.706.24.docx
Petitioners possession of Plot No. A-829, TTC Industrial Area,
Mahape, Navi Mumbai- 400 710".
3. At the outset, Mr. Rajadhyaksha, the learned Senior Counsel
appearing on behalf of the Petitioners pressed the above Petition only in
terms of prayer clauses (a), (a-i) and (b) of the above Writ Petition.
4. According to Mr. Rajadhyaksha, the Petitioners have been
constrained to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India to impugn the arbitrary &
unreasonable acts attributable to the 2 nd and the 4th Respondents. The
gravamen of this Petition emanates from the fact that Respondent No.2 had
initially allotted a plot of land, namely, Plot A-350/1 in the Trans Thane
Creek Industrial Area ("TTC Industrial Area") to the Petitioners and
which was adjoining to their existing facility on Plot A-350. Plot A-350/1 was
allotted to the Petitioners for the purpose of expanding their manufacturing
and processing capabilities. Towards this allotment, MIDC (2 nd Respondent)
also collected more than Rs.5 Crores (in the year 2015) towards the lease
premium and yet did not handover physical possession of Plot A-350/1.
According to MIDC, possession of Plot A-350/1 was not handed over because
the 4th Respondent (Chief Conservator of Forests) raised an objection that
Plot No. A-350/1 was "Forest Land". It appears that because of the objection
JULY 25, 2025
Aswale
20.wp.706.24.docx
of the Forest Department, an alternate Plot, namely, Plot A-829 was allotted
to the Petitioners, in substitution of Plot A-350/1. It appears that the 4 th
Respondent has taken objection to even Plot A-829 being allotted to the
Petitioners because, according to the 4 th Respondent, the same is also "Forest
Land". It is in these circumstances that the Petitioners have approached this
Court in its writ jurisdiction seeking the reliefs more particularly set out
earlier.
5. The brief facts of this case would reveal that in the year 1965,
Respondent No.1 issued a Notification under Section 1 (3) of the
Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 (for short "MID Act"),
applying Chapter VI of the said Act to various lands, including the Plots
which form the subject matter of the present Writ Petition, w.e.f. 15 th October
1965. Thereafter, on 26 th May 1966 and 23rd December 1971, Respondent
No.1 published in the Maharashtra Official Gazette Notifications under
Section 32 (1) of the MID Act whereby they notified that the lands mentioned
therein vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. In other
words, these lands were acquired by the State Government for industrial
purposes as more particularly mentioned in the said Notifications. It is
pertinent to note that Survey No. 134, with many other survey numbers,
formed the subject matter of the aforesaid Notifications issued under Section
JULY 25, 2025
Aswale
20.wp.706.24.docx
32 (1) of the MID Act. Pursuant to these Notifications, possession of the lands
which form the subject matter of these Notifications, were also handed over
to MIDC in the year 1972 (which included Survey No.134). On these lands,
and more particularly Survey No.134, an industrial area was developed in a
phased manner. Accordingly, the Trans Thane Creek Industrial Area ("TTC
Industrial Area") was also developed. After preparation of the layout of
the TTC Industrial Area, Plots were carved out and were allotted to various
entrepreneurs.
6. The Petitioners, in or about 1994, were allotted Plot No. A-350,
situated on the aforesaid Survey No. 134. The Petitioners are currently
carrying on its business activities from the structures constructed on the said
plot. Somewhere in the year 2014, the Petitioners applied for allotment of the
adjacent plot [Plot A-350/1] for expansion purposes. It is pursuant to this
application that MIDC issued an allotment order dated 23 rd July 2015 for Plot
A-350/1 situated on Survey No. 134.
7. It appears that pending the process of allotment of the aforesaid
Plot A-350/1, the Forest Department raised an issue that Survey No. 134 [in
which Plot A-350/1 is situated] is "Forest Land". In answer to this claim of
the Forest Department, MIDC addressed a communication dated 11 th January
JULY 25, 2025
Aswale
20.wp.706.24.docx
2016 and 20th September 2017 informing the Forest Department that Survey
No. 134 was already acquired by the State Government and possession of the
same was handed over to MIDC. It was further pointed out that the said
Survey No. 134 was part of a notified industrial area of MIDC, namely the
TTC Industrial Area, and requested the Forest Department to delete the said
Survey No. 134 as "Forest Land" under the provisions of the Maharashtra
Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975.
8. Be that as it may, considering the objections raised by the Forest
Department, MIDC decided to allot another alternative Plot, namely Plot A-
829 to the Petitioners. It appears that even this Plot, the Forest Department
claims, is "Forest Land", and therefore, cannot be allotted to the Petitioners.
It is in these facts that the present Petition is filed.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some
length. We have also perused the papers and proceedings in the above Writ
Petition. The undisputed facts on record are that Survey No.134 (on which
Plot A-350 and A-350/1 are located) was acquired by the State Government
by resorting to provisions under the MID Act. Pursuant to this acquisition,
Survey No.134 vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. It
was thereafter handed over to MIDC to develop an industrial area.
JULY 25, 2025
Aswale
20.wp.706.24.docx
Accordingly, MIDC developed the TTC Industrial Area in a phased manner in
which Survey No.134 is located. Once this was done, MIDC carved out
various plots and allotted the same to various entrepreneurs, one of which
was the Petitioners. This was in relation to Plot A-350 on which the
Petitioners have already constructed structures thereon, and from which it
carries on its business from the year 1994 onwards.
10. In these undisputed facts, we fail to understand how the Forest
Department can today contend that Plot No. A-350/1, and which is adjoining
to Plot A-350, is "Forest Land". According to the Forest Department, Survey
No.134 is a "Private Forest" because, in relation to Survey No.134, a notice
dated 6th March 1957 was issued to the original owners under Section 35 (3)
of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. Once this notice was issued, then Survey
No.134 would be a "Private Forest" as contemplated under Section 2(f)(iii) of
the Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975. It was the
submission of the Forest Department that the land could not automatically
change from "forest" to "non-forest" just because the land was acquired for
MIDC.
11. We find this argument to be without any merit for more than one
reason. Firstly, we find that the Forest Department has not been able to point
JULY 25, 2025
Aswale
20.wp.706.24.docx
out to us that the Notice issued under Section 35 (3) of the Indian Forest Act,
1927 was ever served upon the original owners. Merely issuing the notice
would not make the land [forming the subject matter of the notice] a "Private
Forest" under Section 2(f)(iii) of the Maharashtra Private Forest
(Acquisition) Act, 1975. The said notice also has to be served on the owners of
the land. If the said notice is not served, merely issuing the said notice would
not make the land [forming the subject matter of the notice] a "Private
Forest". This has been so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited and Anr vs.
State of Maharashtra [(2014) 3 SCC 430] and more particularly
paragraphs 54 to 58 and 72 to 74 thereof. For the sake convenience, the said
paragraphs are reproduced hereunder:-
"54. Applying the law laid down by this Court on
interpretation, in the context of these appeals, we may be
missing the wood for the trees if a literal meaning is
given to the word "issued". To avoid this, it is
necessary to also appreciate the scheme of Section
35 of the Forest Act since that scheme needs to be
kept in mind while considering "issued" in Section
2(f)(iii) of the Private Forests Act.
55. A notice under Section 35(3) of the Forest Act is
intended to give an opportunity to the owner of a forest to
show cause why, inter alia, a regulatory or a prohibitory
measure be not made in respect of that forest. It is
important to note that such a notice presupposes the
existence of a forest. The owner of the forest is expected to
file objections within a reasonable time as specified in the
notice and is also given an opportunity to lead evidence in
support of the objections. After these basic requirements
are met, the owner of the forest is entitled to a hearing on
JULY 25, 2025
Aswale
20.wp.706.24.docx
the objections. This entire procedure obviously cannot
be followed by the State and the owner of the forest
unless the owner is served with the notice.
Therefore, service of a notice issued under Section
35(3) of the Forest Act is inherent in the very
language used in the provision and the very
purpose of the provision.
56. Additionally, Section 35(4) of the Forest Act provides
that a notice under Section 35(3) of the Forest Act may
provide that for a period not exceeding six months
(extended to one year in 1961) the owner of the forest can
be obliged to adhere to one or more of the regulatory or
prohibitory measures mentioned in Section 35(1) of the
Forest Act. On the failure of the owner of the forest to abide
by the said measures, he/she is liable to imprisonment for
a term up to six months and/or a fine under Section 35(7)
of the Forest Act. Surely, given the penal consequence
of non-adherence to a Section 35(4) direction in a
Section 35(3) notice, service of such a notice must
be interpreted to be mandatory. On the facts of the
case in Godrej, such a direction was in fact given and
Godrej was directed, for a period of six months, to refrain
from the cutting and removal of trees and timber and the
firing and clearing of vegetation. Strictly speaking,
therefore, despite not being served with Notice No. WT/53
and despite having no knowledge of it, Godrej was liable to
be punished under Section 35(7) of the Forest Act if it cut
or removed any tree or timber or fired or cleared any
vegetation.
57. This interplay may be looked at from another
point of view, namely, the need to issue a direction
under Section 35(4) of the Forest Act, which can be
only to prevent damage to or destruction of a
forest. If the notice under Section 35(3) of the
Forest Act is not served on the owner of the forest,
he/she may continue to damage the forest defeating
the very purpose of the Forest Act. Such an
interpretation cannot be given to Section 35 of the
Forest Act nor can a limited interpretation be given
to the word "issued" used in the context of Section
35 of the Forest Act in Section 2(f)(iii) of the Private
Forests Act.
JULY 25, 2025
Aswale
20.wp.706.24.docx
58. Finally, Section 35(5) of the Forest Act mandates not
only service of a notice issued under that provision "in the
manner provided in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for
the service of summons" (a manner that we are all familiar
with) but also its publication "in the manner prescribed by
rules". This double pronged receipt and confirmation
of knowledge of the show-cause notice by the owner
of a forest makes it clear that Section 35(3) of the
Forest Act is not intended to end the process with
the mere issuance of a notice but it also requires
service of a notice on the owner of the forest. The
need for ensuring service is clearly to protect the
interests of the owner of the forest who may have
valid reasons not only to object to the issuance of
regulatory or prohibitory directions, but also to
enable him/her to raise a jurisdictional issue that
the land in question is actually not a forest. The
need for ensuring service is also to prevent damage
to or destruction of a forest.
*********
72. Given this factual scenario, we agree that
Section 2(f)(iii) of the Private Forests Act is not
intended to apply to notices that had passed their
shelf life and that only "pipeline notices" issued in
reasonably close proximity to the coming into force
of the Private Forests Act were "live" and could be
acted upon.
73. In Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur
Chenai [(2005) 7 SCC 627] this Court dealt with the
provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and held that the
legislation being an expropriatory legislation, it ought to be
strictly construed since it deprives a person of his/her land.
In this decision, reliance was placed on State of
M.P. v. Vishnu Prasad Sharma [AIR 1966 SC 1593 : (1966) 3
SCR 557] and Khub Chand v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1967
SC 1074 : (1967) 1 SCR 120] . The same rationale
would apply to Section 2(f)(iii) of the Private Forests
Act since it seeks to take away, after a few decades,
private land on the ostensible ground that it is a
private forest. Section 2(f)(iii) of the Private Forests
JULY 25, 2025
Aswale
20.wp.706.24.docx
Act must not only be reasonably construed but also
strictly so as not to discomfit a citizen and
expropriate his/her property.
74. The fact that the Private Forests Act repealed some
sections of the Forest Act, particularly Sections 34-A and 35
thereof is also significant. Section 2(f)(iii) of the Private
Forests Act is in a sense a saving clause for pipeline notices
issued under Section 35(3) of the Forest Act but which
could not, for want of adequate time be either withdrawn
or culminate in the issuance of a regulatory or prohibitory
final notification under Section 35(1) of the Forest Act,
depending on the objections raised by the landowner.
Looked at from any point of view, it does seem clear
that Section 2(f)(iii) of the Private Forests Act was
intended to apply to "live" and not stale notices
issued under Section 35(3) of the Forest Act.
(emphasis supplied)
12. Secondly, it is the State Government itself that has acquired
Survey No.134 [amongst many others] from the original owners and handed
over the same to the MIDC for it to be developed as an industrial area. If, in
fact, Survey No.134 was a "Private Forest", we cannot understand why the
Forest Department did not object to the acquisition of the said land for
industrial purposes by the State Government in the year 1965 itself. Why has
the Forest Department woken up after over 50 years is something that is
completely unexplained. We, therefore, find that the arguments of the Forest
Department to be wholly unsustainable.
JULY 25, 2025
Aswale
20.wp.706.24.docx
13. We find that in similar facts, this Court in the case of Goma
Engineering Private Limited & Anr v/s The State of Maharashtra
& Ors (Writ Petition No. 2752 of 2020 decided on 27 th February
2024) inter alia quashed the Communication dated 22 nd November 2019
issued by the Range Forest Officer, Thane which inter alia stated that in view
of the issuance of a notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927,
and which was dated 29th September 1950, it would not be permissible to
undertake any construction on the land which formed the subject matter of
the said Writ Petition. In fact, the Division Bench even went on to direct
Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 therein to take appropriate steps to rectify the
mutation entry. We find that the facts in the present case are very similar to
the facts in Goma Engineering Private Ltd (supra). In Goma
Engineering Private Ltd (supra) also, the land in question was acquired
under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and possession of the
same was handed over to MIDC, who then proceeded to allot the said plot to
the predecessor of the Petitioner therein.
14. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, and
the discussion above, we are of the view that the above Writ Petition deserves
to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b)
reproduced above. As a consequence, we also direct the District Collector,
JULY 25, 2025
Aswale
20.wp.706.24.docx
Thane to carry out requisite changes in Mutation Entry No. 815 so as to not
reflect Survey No.134 as "Forest Land" or a "Private Forest".
15. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, and the Writ
Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof. However, there shall be no order
as to costs.
16. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/
Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax
or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.
[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]
JULY 25, 2025
Aswale
