IMPORTANT POINT
In order to vest private forest in Government under the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act need not have actually been served on the land-holder and it is sufficient that the notice was issued before coming into force of the Maharashtra Act.

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel on both sides.

3. In this appeal, a limited notice was issued at the time of admission on 29.7.1998.

4. The appellant before us is the land holder. He was in possession of various extents of lands. Now we are concerned only with Survey Nos. 31, 32 and 33 in the village Versave in District Thane comprising various extents of lands in all roughly amounting to 20 hectares. The appellant field an application under Section 6 of the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 which provides for settlement of disputes in relation to private forest land. Section 6 reads as under:

"Section 6 : 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 60 days from the date of the decision of the Collector, or the order of the State Government under Section 18, be final."

5. Initially the Deputy Collector passed an order on 25.9.80 in favour of the appellant holding that the land was water-logged and could not be treated as forest land and he also held that the land did not vest in the State of Maharashtra on 30.8.1975 when the Maharashtra Act, 1975 came into force inasmuch as notice was issued under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act 1927 on 29.8.1975 and was not served on the landholder before 30.8.1975 but was served only thereafter on 12..9.1975. In other words, the Deputy Collector held that for the purpose of the definition of "private forest" under Section 2(f) of Maharashtra 1975 Act, it was necessary that notice be not only issued under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act 1927, but should have also been served on the land holder before the commencement of Maharashtra Act on 30.8.1975. He, therefore, held that the private forest land of the appellant did not vest in the State under the 1975 Act on 30.8.75.

6. On appeal by the State, the Revenue Tribunal Maharashtra, reversed this view of the Dy. Collector dated 25.9.1980 and held that inasmuch as notice was issued on 29.8.1975 under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act 1927, the private forest of the appellant vested in the State even though the notice was not served on the appellant before 30.8.1975. The Tribunal, therefore, remanded the matter by its order dated 23.8.83 and observed that the Deputy Collector should hold consequential detailed enquiries and dispose of the matter according to law.

7. Thereafter, after the remand order, the Deputy Collector passed an order an order on 29.6.1992. The appellant raised a question of issuance of notice once again but the said officer held that this question had become final by the order of the Tribunal above-mentioned and could not be reopened. The appellant then went before the Tribunal which also held by its order dated 28.2.1995 that this question could not be reopened. The Review Application filed by the appellant was dismissed on 26.7.1996. The appellant then filed writ petition before the High Court which was dismissed on 24.1.1997 by the learned Single Judge. Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed on 11.12.1997. The Letters Patent Bench passed the following order :

"Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant.

"In our view, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal. The findings given by the Court below are confirmed by the learned Single Judge. According to the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, in the lands bearing Survey Nos. 31, 32 and 33 of Village Versova, there were 2639, 352 and 920 trees, respectively. Considering this aspect and considering the provision of Section 2(c)(i) of the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, the Tribunal has a