2018 Supreme(Bom) 1271
S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, P.D.NAIK
Devkumar Gopaldas Aggarwal – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra through its Principal Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya – Respondent
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Dr. Milind Sathe Sr. Counsel a/w Sharmila Deshmukh and Ms. Swati N. Jain I/b A.S. Dayal & Associates, Shri Milind Sathe Sr. Counsel a/w Bhushan Deshmukh a/w Monisha Mane a/w Pooja Tated I/b ALMT legal, Shri Ajinkya J. Jaibhave, Ms. Lata Patne a/w Vinod Joshi, Mr. Lokesh Zade, Mr. Kamlesh Ghumre a/w Sonali Jadhav a/w Aditya Parulekar, Mrs. Alisha R. Lambay & Mr. Vikas K. Singh a/w Mr. Aupam R. Dwivedi I/b Lambay & Co, Mr. Vedchetan Patil a/w Radha Agrawal I/b Moses Rodrigues, Mr. Piyush Pande Ms. Zahra Baldiwala I/b Kartikeya & Associates, Mr. A.S. Khandeparkar a/w Rakesh Pathak I/b Khandeparkar & Associates, Mr. Milind N. Jadhav a/w Pranav S. Nair I/b SRM Law Associates, Mr. Jitendra Pathade, Mr. Ooril Panchal I/b. M/s. Mahimtura and Co., Mr. Ranbir Singh with Mr. Hiren G. Shah I/b Prakash & Co., Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar Sr. Counsel a/w J.G. Aradwad (Reddy), Mr. G.S. Godbole a/w Drupad Patil and Shivani Samel and Akshya Petkar, Shruti Tulpule & Kaustubh Thipsay, Mr. Chirag Balsara and Mr. Singh and Akshay Doctor I/b Desai & Diwanji, Mr. Iqbal Chhagla Sr. Advocate with Naval Agarwal I/b S.R. Waghmare, Mr. Sudanrao Jondhale with Mr. Anand S. Jondhale, Yashoda Jondhale, Babu Singh, Mr. Ajay S. Jondhale, Vijay S. Jondhale and Raj S. Jondhale I/b Jondhale & Co., Mr. Sumit Kothari, Mr. Kaustav Talukdar counsel a/w Vikash Kumar a/w Ruturaj Bankar I/b Lex Legal & partners, Mr. Saket Mone a/w Mr. Sumit Chakrabarti and Ms. Neha Joshi I/b Vidhi Partners, Ms. S.V. Sonawane with Mr. Satish Mule and T.H. Jadhav, Ms. Pooja Joshi, Mr. Ajit R. Pitale, Mr. Rabir Singh a/w Miss Naseem Patrawala a/w Bhuvan Thakker I/b Malvi Ranchoddas & Co., Mr. Girish S. Godbole a/w Mr. Ameya Vinay Borwankar, Ms. Sonal Dabholkar I/b Suresh Sabrad, Mr. Vivek Arote with Mr. Y. Apte I/b Harshad Bhadbhade, Mr. Vishal Phal a/w Ms. Jyotsana S. Kondhalkar I/b VBA law, Mr. V.P. Sawant with Nitin Dhumal, Mr. Vineet B. Naik Sr. Adv. With Sukand Kulkarni, Mr. V.A. Gangal with Anup N. Deshmukh, Karen D'souza I/b SRM Law Associates, Shri N.V. Walawalkar Sr. Counsel a/w Sonal Dabholkar I/b Suresh Sabrad, Mr. Jehangir D. Mistri-Senior Advocate with Mr. Navin Bhatia i/b. M/s. Mahimtura and Co.
For the Respondents:Mr. Navroj Seervai Sr. Advocate/ Special counsel with Mr. A.B. Vagyani Govt. Pleader with Ms. Geeta Shashtri Addl. G.P. and Mr. Atul Vanarase AGP with Mr. P.P. More, AGP and Mr. B.V. Samant AGP, Mr. Dhanesh R. Shah a/w Bharat Mehta, Mr. Nikhil Sakhardande a/w Mr. Parag A. Vyas, Mr. Chandrakant Chavan, Y.R. Mishra a/w N.R. Prajapati a/w Upendra Lokegaonkar, Mr. Advait M. Sethna a/w M.S. Bharadwaj and Mr. Pranil Sonawane, Mr. D.N. Mishra with Richa Mishra, Mr. D.P. Singh, Ms. J.N. Pandhi with Mr. Mohamedali M. Chunawala, S.I. Shah a/w Dushyant Kumar, Mr. Milind N. Jadhav a/w Pranav S. Nair I/b SRM Law Associates, Anil D. Yadav a/w Anand O. Singh, Mr. Parag vyas a/w Mr. Vora and Mr. D.R. Shah, Mr. Ajit R. Pitale, Mr. Dushyant Kumar, Mr. D.A. Dubey with Mohamedali M. Chunawala, Mr. B.P. Jadeja I/b Pranil Sonawane & A.M. Sethna and Mr. Alefiya Mandriwala, Smt. S.I. Shah, Mr. Mayuresh S. Lagu, Mr. S.R. Nargolkar, Adv. Karen D'souza I/b SRM Law Associates.
JUDGMENT :
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,
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
