IMPORTANT POINTS
(1)Issue of notice inherently means service thereof.
(2) Exhaustive definition does not oust ordinary and popular meaning of a word or expression. In ‘means’ and ‘includes’ ‘means’ is not controlled by ‘includes’.
(3) In absence of any fixed time, action must be taken within reasonable time but 18 years cannot be said to be reasonable.
(4) General principle of caveat emptor cannot be applied in exceptional circumstances.

Headnote:(a) Forest Act, 1927 – Section 35(3) – Notice issued to land owner – Land owner not heard – Had no opportunity to contend that his land was not a ‘forest’ within meaning of section 2(c-i), Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act 1975 – Land would not vest automatically in the State by virtue of section 3, Private Forest Act. (Para 25)
       AIR 1978 Bombay 119 – Cited with approval
       (b) Legal Interpretation – Words and phrases – Expression ‘Means’ and ‘includes’ – Makes definition exhaustive – ‘Means’ is not controlled by ‘includes’ – Hence the ordinary and popular meaning of the word is not taken away. (Para 48, 49)
       (1976) 2 SCC 942; (1998) 1 SCC 458; (1883) 8 AC 798 – Relied upon
       (c) Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 – Section 2(c-i) – Definition of private forest – ‘Means’ and ‘includes’ – Does not oust ordinary and popular meaning of forest – Instantly disputed lands neither waste land nor forest – These were built upon for different purposes – Not forest land either within primary meaning of that word, or even within the extended meaning given in Section 2(c-i) of Private Forests Act. (Para 47, 51)
       (d) Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 – Section 2(f)(iii) r/w section 35, Forest Act – “Issued” – Contextual interpretation – Service of a notice issued under Section 35(3) – Inherent in the very language of the provision and the very purpose of the provision – Notice u/s 35(3) giving directions u/s 35(4) – Non adherence to these directions attracting penal consequences – Unless notice is served owner may continue to destroy the forest – Moreover if owner’s claim is legally correct, he will be deprived of his right in absence of service of notice – Service of notice mandatory. (Para 56 to 58)
       (1964) 6 SCR 784; (2000) 5 SCC 346; (2002) 5 SCC 397 – Relied upon
       1993 Supp (3) SCC 530; (1964) 7 SCR 539; (1975) 4 SCC 844 – Referred
       (2000) 3 SCC 143 – Overruled
       (e) Forest Act, 1927 – Section 35 – Show cause notice – No time specified for taking action under – Should be decided within reasonable time – Reasonable time cannot have fixed connotation – Show cause notice not acted upon in 18 years – Has become a dead letter. (Para 64, 66 to 68)
       (2012) 5 SCC 1; (1984) 1 SCC 125; (2009) 9 SCC 352 – Relied upon
       (f) Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 – Section 2(f)(iii) – Not to apply to notices that had passed their shelf-life – Only notices issued in reasonably close proximity to the coming into force of the Act were ‘live’ and could be acted upon. (Para 71)
       (2005) 7 SCC 627; (1966) 3 SCR 557; (1967) 1 SCR 120 – Relied upon
       (g) Administration of Justice – Caveat emptor – Cannot apply in exceptional circumstances – Even if the land was forest land, State remained inactive for 18 years – Granted permission for construction of buildings – Exempting land from ceiling Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 – State providing necessary infrastructure for the land – Appellant making constructions – Cannot be allowed to be demolished. (Para 82)
       (1974) 2 SCC 506; (1996) 6 SCC 464; (1995) 6 SCC 127; (1991) 3 SCC 341 – Distinguished
       Facts of the case:
       This case raises the issue of condition precedent for declaring a land private forest under 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 as defined in Section 2(f)(iii) of the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975.
       Interpretation of the word the word “issued” in Section 2(f) (iii) of the Maharashtra Private Forests Acquisition Act, 1975 read with Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 also came up for consideration in this case.
       Another related question that the Court was required to answer was whether the State can be allowed to demolish massive constructions made on forest land over last half century.
       The Court answered all these questions in the negative.
       As per the compromise decree between Godrej and the State of Maharashtra passed by the High Court 13 acres of land were property of Godrej which waste land and appropriated or brought under cultivation by Godrej before 14th August 1951.
       With permission from the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and exemption from Ceiling Act Godrej contrasted many multi-storeyed buildings for residential purposes of its staff and a management institute.
       Much before these developments, it was alleged that a notice was issued by the State As to why the disputed land belonging to Godrej be not declared forest and acquired as such. However this notice was never served on Godrej and never acted upon.
       However in 2006 Godrej received six stop-work notices from the concerned Assistant Engineer of the Bombay Municipal Corporation stating that the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Thane Forest Division, had informed that the disputed land was “affected” by the reservation of a private forest and therefore no construction could be carried out therein without the permission of the Central Government under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980.
       Godrej filed Writ Petition in the High Court praying, inter alia, for a declaration that the lands owned by it in village Vikhroli are not forest land; that the letter issued by the Deputy Conservator of Forest as well as six stop-work notices dated 24th May 2006 be declared as illegal, ab initio null and void and that the mutation in the revenue records be also declared illegal.
       The writ petition was dismissed.
       Finding of the Court:
       Appellants althrough followed due legal process. Cannot be deprived of their property for inaction of the State.
       Result : Appeals allowed.

Judgment :-

Madan B. Lokur, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The principal question for consideration is whether the mere issuance of a notice under the provisions of Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 is sufficient for any land being declared a “private forest” within the meaning of that expression as defined in Section 2(f)(iii) of the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975. In our opinion, the question must be answered in the negative. Connected therewith is the question whether the word “issued” in Section 2(f) (iii) of the Maharashtra Private Forests Acquisition Act, 1975 read with Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 must be given a literal interpretation or a broad meaning.

In our opinion the word must be given a broad meaning in the surrounding context in which it is used.

3. A tertiary question that arises is, assuming the disputed lands are forest lands, can the State be allowed to demolish the massive constructions made thereon over the last half a century. Given the facts and circumstances of these appeals, our answer to this question is also in the negative.

4. This is a batch of 20 appeals and they were argued on the basis of the facts as in the appeal of Godrej. In each appeal, the minute details would, of course, be different but the legal issues are the same and all the appeals were argued by learned counsel on the basis that the legal issues and questions of law are the same. For convenience, we have taken into consideration the facts in the appeal of Godrej.

Facts

5. Godrej acquired land in Vikhroli in Salsette taluka in Maharashtra by a registered deed of conveyance dated 30th July 1948 from Nowroji Pirojsha, successor in interest of Framjee Cawasjee Banaji who, in turn, had been given a perpetual lease/kowl for the land by the Government of Bombay on 7th July 1835.

6. The land was described in the perpetual lease/kowl as “waste land” and one of the purposes of the lease was to cultivate the waste land. We are concerned in this appeal with an area of 133 acres and 38 gunthas of land bearing Old Survey Nos. 117,118 and 120 (New Survey Nos. 36 (Part), 37 and 38). For convenience this land is hereafter referred as the “disputed land”.

Consent decree in the Bombay High Court

7. On 27th August 1951 the Legislative Assembly of the State of Bombay passed the Salsette Estates (Land Revenue Exemption Abolition) Act, 1951.

This statute was brought into force on 1st March 1952. Section 4 of the Salsette Estates Act provided that waste lands granted under a perpetual lease/kowl not appropriated or brought under cultivation before 14th August 1951 shall vest in and be the property of the State. [Section 4 - Waste lands, etc.. to vest in Government

(a) All waste lands in any estate which under the terms of the kowl are not the property of the estate-holder,

(b) all waste lands in any estate which under the terms of the kowl are the property of the estate-holder but have not been appropriated or brought under cultivation before the 14th August 1951, and kinds of property referred to in Section 37 of the Code situate in an estate which is not the property of any individual or an aggregate of persons legally capable of holding property other than the estate-holder and except in so far as any rights of persons may be established in or over the same and except as may be otherwise provided by any law for the time being in force, together with all rights in or over the same or appertaining thereto, and are hereby declared to be the property of the State and it shall be lawful to dispose of and sell the same by the authority in the manner and for the purposes prescribed in Section 37 or 38 of the Code, as the case may be.

8. According to the State, the disputed land was not appropriated or brought under cultivation before 14th August 1951 and, therefore, it vested in or was the property of the State by virtue of Section 4 of the Salsette Estates Act.

9. This factual position was disputed by Godrej and to reso

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 Supreme(SC) 74

Cases Referred (19)