S.C. Dharmadhikari, J.

1. In all these matters, the primary question falling for our consideration and determination is, whether the judgment and order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited and Anr. vs. the State of Maharashtra, (2014) 3 SCC 430, would apply or otherwise. The next question is, whether each of these petitioners can rely upon this judgment to resist the consequences flowing from the Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1975”), when their predecessors in title have never raised any dispute about the applicability of this law or the steps and action taken in pursuance thereof.

2. The facts and circumstances in most of these petitions are identical. Since extensive arguments were canvassed, we are disposing of these petitions by a common judgment.

3. Rule is granted in each of these petitions. The respondents waive service. By consent of parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith.

4. In Writ Petition No. 4814 of 2016 the facts are that the petitioners are the owners of land bearing Survey Nos. 81, 82/1 to 82/6, 87/1, 82/7 to 82/16, 84/3, 85, 87/2 to 87/4, 88, 90/1, 90/2, 91/1, totally admeasuring 108.7860 acres, situated at Village- Dahiwali, Taluka-Maval, District-Pune (hereinafter referred to as “the said property”), which is the subject matter of the present petition. The chart showing survey numbers with corresponding Gat numbers, the area and the date of purchase of the said property is annexed as Exhibit 'A' to the petition.

5. Respondent no. 1 is the State of Maharashtra through its Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, in whose favour the impugned mutation entry is made in respect of the said property. Respondent no. 2 is the Revenue Officer, the authority constituted and performing functions under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as “the MLRC”), on whose instructions the impugned mutation entry has been effected in respect of the said property. Respondent no. 3 is the Chief Conservator of Forests, an authority constituted and, inter alia, discharging duties under the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. Respondent no. 4 is the Collector, Pune Division. All the respondents are 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this court.

6. The petitioners, by this petition, challenge the arbitrary and illegal action on the part of the respondents in treating the petitioner's lands as “forest/private Forest” although these lands have never been forest in fact or in law. The petitioners are also challenging the action of the authorities in mutating the name under the provisions of the Maharashtra Private Forest Act in “other rights” column in Revenue records of the Petitioners' lands under Mutation Entry No. 521. The actions on the part of the respondent authorities treating the said property as “forest” are completely arbitrary, unreasonable and non-est. The entire claim of the respondents for claiming the said property as “forest” is based on a purported show cause notice, stated to be issued on 7th June, 1956 under section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, which was not even served on the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners who were cultivating the said property. The said property is “Jirayat” land and was cultivated accordingly.

7. The petitioners state that the said notice not having been acted upon by the respondents, has lapsed and ceased to have any effect and, therefore, the actions of respondents on that basis, after about 46 years of the said notice, are clearly arbitrary and unreasonable. In any case, the said property was always under cultivation by the predecessor-in-title of the petitioners and was never actually and physically “forest” at any point of time and, therefore, the notice issued under section 35(3) of the Act of 1927 was rightly abandoned and did not cu