JUDGMENT :

DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, J.

Petitioners claim to be in possession of land as owners falling under Survey No.245/4B, admeasuring 630 sq. mtrs. in village Kavesar, Taluka and District Thane. The Petitioners, inter alia, challenge the legality and validity of an order dated 27th March 2015 passed suo motu by the District Collector, Thane under section 22(5) of the Maharashtra Private Forest Act, 1975 (‘the Forest Act’) in respect of the aforementioned land. The Petitioners also seek the issuance of a writ of certiorari for setting aside the impugned Notification dated 5th November 1960 by virtue of which, the land claimed to be in the ownership and possession of the Petitioners has been declared as a forest land.

2. With a view to understand the genesis of the controversy, it would be pertinent to mention a few material facts in brief :

Section 35(1) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (‘the Act, 1927’) authorizes the State to issue a notification in the official gazette to regulate or prohibit in any forest or waste land (a) the activity of breaking up or clearing of land for cultivation; (b) the pasturing of cattle; or (c) the firing or clearing of vegetation; when such regulation or prohibition appears necessary for the purposes mentioned in section 35(1).

Sub-section (3) of section 35 however envisages that no notification shall be made under sub-section (1) until after the issuance of a notice to the owner of such forest or land calling on him to show cause why such a notification should not be made and until his objections, if any, and any evidence that he may produce in support of the same, have been heard by an officer duly appointed in that behalf and have been considered by the State Government.

3. It appears that a notice in terms of sub-section (3) of section 35 was issued, dated 19th September 1950 which required the predecessors in interest to show cause as to why the accompanying notification be not made by the Government under section 35(1) in respect of the forest specified in the schedule appended to the said notification. The schedule appended to the notification (draft notification) refected the survey No.245 of Village Kavesar which the Petitioners claim belonged to them.

4. The case set up by the Petitioners is that the notice (supra) although issued was never served upon either the predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioners or the Petitioners. A specific averment in this regard regarding the notice not having been served on the Petitioners is reflected in ground 5(J), which reads as under :

“5(J) : The Petitioners most respectfully state that the petitioners are also not served with the notice u/s. 35 of the Forest Act.”

5 In the response fled by the State, the reply submitted reads as under :

“With reference to paragraph No.5J, the proof regarding service of notice is not available.”

6 The service of notice issued in terms of section 35(3) of the Act, 1927 assumes significance in view of the Apex Court judgment in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2014) 3 SCC 430 which shall be referred to by us a little while later.

7. Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975 (‘Private Forest Act, 1975’) came to be enacted and was notified in the Government gazette on 29th August 1975. Section 2(f) of the Private Forest Act defines a private forest to mean any forest which is not the property of the Government and includes, -

(i) ……

(ii) ……

(iii) Any land in respect of which, a notice has been issued under sub-section (3) of section 35 of the Forest Act, but excluding an area not exceeding two hectares in extent as the Collector may specify in this behalf.

7A. Section 3 of the said Act further envisages that with effect from the appointed day all private forests in the State shall stand acquired and vest free from all encumbrances and shall be deemed to be the property of the State Government.

8. Section 22(A) further envisages an application to be made by any