SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Bom) 127

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.J. KATHAWALLA, MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.
Sankalp Resorts Limited and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 95 of 2020
Decided on : 15-03-2022

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar, Mr. Dinesh Purandare, Ms. Lata Dhruv, Keya Raval and Ms. Swati Sutar Advocates i/by M/s. Dhru & Co.
For the Respondent:Mr. Ashutosh M. Kulkarni, Mr. S.B. Kalel, Mr. Mandar Limaye with Mr. Advait Sethna, Advocates

Headnote:

Forest Land - Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975 - Section 6, Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - [Section 6 of the Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975] - [Summary of Acts and Sections: The judgment discusses the provisions of the Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975 and the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980. It highlights the determination of whether the lands in question are 'private forest' or 'forest' under the State Act and the applicability of the Central Act. The court analyzes the documentary evidence, the Collector's decision, and the requirement of Central Government approval under Section 2 of the Central Act. The judgment concludes that the provisions of Section 2 of the Central Act do not apply to the said lands, quashing the requirement for Central Government approval.]

Fact of the Case:

The Petitioners own six parcels of land in Maharashtra and have assigned development rights to another party. They assert that the lands are agricultural and not 'private forest' or 'forest' as per the State Act and the Central Act. The Deputy Conservator of Forest issued a letter declaring the lands as 'forest land', leading to a dispute and statutory appeals. The Collector declared the lands as 'not private forest' under Section 6 of the State Act, subject to Central Government approval under Section 2 of the Central Act. The Petitioners filed a Writ Petition seeking deletion of the Mutation entry and a detailed judgment from the Collector.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the provisions of Section 2 of the Central Act do not apply to the said lands, quashing the requirement for Central Government approval. The judgment allowed the Writ Petition in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (c) without costs.

Issues: The main issue was whether the lands in question are 'private forest' or 'forest' under the State Act and the applicability of the Central Act. The court also addressed the unilateral Mutation entry, the Collector's decision, and the requirement of Central Government approval under Section 2 of the Central Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the determination that the provisions of Section 2 of the Central Act do not apply to the said lands, quashing the requirement for Central Government approval. The court upheld the rest of the order passed by the Collector.

Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (c) without costs. The court rejected the application for stay of the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

S.J. Kathawalla, Milind N. Jadhav, JJ.

By the present petition, the Petitioners have prayed for the following reliefs:

    "(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 2nd Respondent to issue his Judgment under Section 6 of the Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975 in terms of its Order dated January 13, 2011 without recourse to the Union of India under The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980;

(b) Without prejudice to prayer (a) above and strictly in the alternative thereto, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the 5th Respondent to grant its approval under Section 2 of The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 within such time as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and/or proper;

(c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the 4th Respondent to:

(i) delete the Mutation Entry No.720 dated December 24, 2005 in the revenue records maintained in respect of the lands described in Exhibit I hereto;

(ii) intimate all concerned Land and Revenue Authorities to update their respective records of the deletion of Mutation Entry No.720 dated December 24, 2005.”

2. Before we advert to the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties, it will be apposite to state the relevant facts in brief.

2.1. The Petitioner No.1 is the owner of following six parcels of land situated in revenue village Bhushi, Taluka Maval, District Pune, within the limits of the Municipal Council of Lonavala (for short: "the said lands"):-

SURVEY NO.

AREA H R

 

113 A/1

1

94.25

113 B/2

1

74

113 B/1

1

10

114

2

27

115

5

38

116/1

3

85

2.2. The Petitioner No.1 has assigned development rights to the Petitioner No.2 in respect of the said lands under registered development agreements.

2.3. The Petitioners assert that the following documentary evidence in respect of the said lands prove that the said lands are/were agricultural lands:

    i. 7/12 extracts i.e. revenue records of the said lands;

ii. judgment and order dated 31.07.1976 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Poona in Ceiling Appeal No. 498 of 1976 in respect of Survey Nos. 113 and 113A;

iii. order dated 22.01.1992 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Haveli, Pune in respect of Survey Nos. 113/A/1, 113/B/2 and 113/B/1 regularizing the transfer of said lands in favour of the Petitioner No.1's predecessor in title;

iv. commencement certificate dated 14.05.1997 issued by the Lonavala Municipal Council in respect of Survey Nos. 113/A(pt), 113/B(pt), 114, 115 and 116/1;

v. final development plan of the year 1978 classifying the said lands as 'agricultural lands';

vi. certificate dated 02.11.2011 issued by the Lonavala Municipal Council certifying that the said lands were included in the 'agricultural' or 'non-development' plan approved on 20.01.1978;

vii. zone certificate dated 12.07.2018 issued by the Lonavala Municipal Council classifying the said lands as 'agricultural lands'.

2.4. In view of the above documentary evidence it is the Petitioners' case that the said lands are not 'private forest land' or 'forest' as contemplated under the provisions of the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 ("the State Act") and/or the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 ("the Central Act").

2.5. On 11.11.2005, the Respondent No.3 - Deputy Conservator of Forest issued a letter to the Tahsildar - Maval stating that the said lands along with several other lands stood vested in the State Government under the provisions of the State Act and the Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Rules, 1980 ("the said Rules"). The said letter further stated that all non-forest activities were permissib

                          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                          1
                          2
                          3
                          4
                          5
                          6
                          7
                          8
                          9
                          10
                          11
                          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                          supreme today icon
                          logo-black

                          An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                          Please visit our Training & Support
                          Center or Contact Us for assistance

                          qr

                          Scan Me!

                          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                          whatsapp-icon Back to top