The main legal point established in the judgment is that the mere issuance of notice under section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 is not sufficient for declaring land as a deemed forest, and proper compliance and service of notices are essential for such declarations.

V.M. Kanade, J.

1. Heard.

2. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent of the parties, Petition is taken up for final hearing.

3. By this Petition which is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Petitioners are seeking an appropriate writ, order and direction for setting aside the impugned Mutation Entry Nos. 162 and 186 in respect of the land admeasuring 323.75 hectares bearing Survey No.229, New Gut No.3 situated in Revenue Village Mormarewadi [Karanjgaon] Taluka Mawal, District Pune, more particularly described in the Schedule annexed to the Petition at Exhibit-A.

4. The short questions which fall for consideration before this Court are:

(i) whether issuance of notice under section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 alone is sufficient compliance for the said land being declared as a deemed forest within the meaning of section 2(f)(iii) of the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975?

(ii) whether Mutation Entries which have been made can be sustained in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2014) 3 SCC 430) and the judgment and order passed by this Court in Satelite Developers Limited & Anr vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors (2015(3) ALL MR 781)?

5. Brief facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding this Petition are that one Gajanan Vishwanath Karve and members of his family were owners of the said land. It appears that the Petitioners entered into development agreement and/or Deeds of Conveyance with the said Karves and Power of Attorney was also given by the said Karves to the Petitioners. The Petitioners, after making inquiry, came to know that this land was declared as forest by the government authorities and therefore filed Writ Petition in this Court being Writ Petition No.283 of 2009, challenging the said Mutation Entries.

6. Division Bench of this Court, however, held that the Petitioners have raised disputed question of facts and therefore directed the Petitioners to exhaust the alternative remedy which was available to them of challenging the said Entries before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Taluka Mawal.

7. Petitioners, being aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by this Court dated 18/2/2010 in Writ Petition No.283 of 2009, filed Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.19347 of 2010 in the Apex Court. However, the said SLP was allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law.

8. Petitioners accordingly filed an appeal being RTS/733/2012 before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Taluka Mawal. Despite the several applications being made by the Petitioners, the said appeal was not expeditiously disposed of and is still pending.

9. In the meantime, the Apex Court in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited and another vs. State of Maharashtra and others (2014) 3 SCC 430) where a similar issue was raised, by its judgment and order dated 30/01/2014 in terms held that mere issuance of notice under section 35(3) of the Indian Forests Act, 1927 was not sufficient and that the procedure which was required to be followed under the said section had to be followed and it would have to be established that the said notice had been served on the owners of the said land. It therefore held that the issuance of notices contemplated under section 2(f)(iii) were live notices or pipeline notices. The Apex Court held that under the amended Section 35(4), the period of existence of such notices was limited to six months which was later on increased to one year. The Apex Court observed that in order to save such live notices or pipeline notices, section 2(f)(iii) was inserted. It further held that therefore mere issuance of notice was not sufficient and it had to be established that these notices had been sent and procedure under Section 35(3) had been followed. The Apex Court in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limite