Back
2025 Supreme(Bom) 1197
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
B. P. Colabawalla, Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ.
M/s Jabs International Pvt Ltd. - Petitioners
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 706 of 2024
Decided On : 25-07-2025
For the Petitioner:Mr. Atul Rajadhyaksha, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nishant Tripathi, Pranav Vaidya i/b M. Tripathi & Co, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. K. S. Thorat ‘B’ Panel Counsel, Mr. Prashant Chawan, Senior Advocate with Poonam Seth i/b Navdeep Vora & Associates, Advocates, Mr. S. D. Valvi, Assistant Conservator of Forest, Thane (L. R. P. & Wildlife) is present.
The court ruled that land once acquired by the state for industrial purposes cannot later be classified as forest land, affirming the supremacy of legal acquisition processes over departmental objections.
Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 - Sections 1(3) and 32(1) - Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Section 35(3) - Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975 - Allotment of land - Petitioners sought quashing of a communication declaring land as 'Government Forest' and sought allotment of industrial plots - Respondents raised objections claiming the land was forest land - Court held that since acquisition was done by the State government, the Forest Department’s objections were unsustainable, ruling that Plot No. A-350/1 could not be classified as forest land post-acquisition. (Paras 5, 10, 12, and 14)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of exercise - The Court asserted that it possess the power to rectify and direct appropriate changes regarding land classifications post-acquisition, ensuring legal principles uphold the primacy of state law and transactions made thereunder. (Paras 14 and 15)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioners applied for allotment of an adjacent plot for expansion; despite the land’s allocation by MIDC and payment of significant lease premiums, possession was never handed over due to objections regarding its classification as forest land.
Findings of Court:
The Court found the arguments of the Forest Department to be without merit; it confirmed that there was no basis for the land to be labeled as forest land post its acquisition and ordered necessary actions to rectify land records.
Issues: The primary issues involved the legal status of land occupancy and classification against state-acquired purpose for industrial development.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court highlighted that issuing notices under the Forest Act requires serving the concerned landowners; failing to do so renders such legal notices ineffective, thus invalidating the Forest Department's claim.
Result: Writ Petition allowed; communication quashed; direction to refrain from classifying the land as 'Forest Land'.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations regarding land designation and ownership. (Para 2 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. arguments regarding legal status of the land. (Para 4 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. court analysis of relevant legal precedents. (Para 9 , 13) |
| 4. legal interpretation of notice issuance. (Para 11) |
| 5. decision on writ petition and implications. (Para 14 , 15) |
JUDGMENT :
B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.
1. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.
2. The above Writ Petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
“a. That that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue the writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records and proceedings pertaining to Plot No. A-350/1 and upon its scrutiny, be further pleased to quash and set aside the letter dated 28th September 2015 issued by the Respondent No.2 informing the Petitioners that the said land (Plot No. A-350/1) is recorded as “the Government Forest”.
a(i). That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records and proceedings of the Appeal of the MIDC before the Ld. Ld Sub-Divisional Officer, Thane (Kra. TD/Te-6/Kha.Van/SR-01/2025) and upon examining the validity of the order dated 12th February 2025 (Exhibit K to the Petition) passed by the Ld. Sub-Divisional Officer, Thane, be pleased to quash and set aside the same;
b. That this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue the writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order and direction directing the Respondent No.2 to (a) execute and register the Lease Deed thereby vesting into the Petitioners Plot No. A-350/1, TTC Industrial Area, Mahape, Navi Mumbai-400 710, (b) to hand over to the Petitioners possession of Plot No.A-350/1, TTC Industrial Area, Mahape, Navi Mumbai- 400 710.
c. That in the event of this Hon’ble Court not being pleased to grant prayer clause (b) supra, be pleased to the issuance of writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate, writ, order and direction directing the Respondent No.2 to (a) execute and register the Lease Deed thereby vesting into the Petitioners Plot No. A-829, TTC Industrial Area, Mahape, Navi Mumbai- 400 710, (b) to hand over to the Petitioners possession of Plot No. A-829, TTC Industrial Area, Mahape, Navi Mumbai- 400 710”.
3. At the outset, Mr. Rajadhyaksha, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners pressed the above Petition only in terms of prayer clauses (a), (a-i) and (b) of the above Writ Petition.
4. According to Mr. Rajadhyaksha, the Petitioners have been constrained to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to impugn the arbitrary & unreasonable acts attributable to the 2nd and the 4th Respondents. The gravamen of this Petition emanates from the fact that Respondent No.2 had initially allotted a plot of land, namely, Plot A-350/1 in the Trans Thane Creek Industrial Area (“TTC Industrial Area”) to the Petitioners and which was adjoining to their existing facility on Plot A-350. Plot A-350/1 was allotted to the Petitioners for the purpose of expanding their manufacturing and processing capabilities. Towards this allotment, MIDC (2nd Respondent) also collected more than Rs.5 Crores (in the year 2015) towards the lease premium and yet did not handover physical possession of Plot A-350/1. According to MIDC, possession of Plot A-350/1 was not handed over because the 4th Respondent (Chief Conservator of Forests) raised an objection that Plot No. A-350/1 was “Forest Land”. It appears that because of the objection of the Forest Department, an alternate Plot, namely, Plot A-829 was allotted to the Petitioners, in substitution of Plot A-350/1. It appears that the 4th Respondent has taken objection to even Plot A-829 being allotted to the Petitioners because, according to the 4
