Lands cannot be classified as forest unless legally notified and proper procedures followed, invalidating requirements for governmental approval for non-forest activities.

JUDGMENT :

B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.

1. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of the parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

2. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioners seek an order and direction for setting aside Mutation Entry Nos. 1700 and 1770, pertaining to old Survey Nos. 65/1, 66/1 and 101/3 (New Survey Nos. 66/1/A, 66/1/B/1, 66/1/B/2, 66/1/B/3, 66/1/B/4, 67/1/A/A, 67/1/A/2, 67/1/A/3, 67/1/A/4 and 102/3) at Village Moreb, Taluka Panvel, District Raigad (for short the “said lands”). By the impugned Mutation Entries, the said lands have been treated as Forest Lands, and a remark has been inserted that for non-forest activities, the landowners would be required to obtain permission from the Central Government.

3. According to the Petitioners, the said lands bearing old Survey Nos. 65/1, 66/1 and 101/3 were originally owned by one Bhau Babu Patil, Dadu Babu Patil and Krushna Tukaram Patil, respectively. According to the Petitioners, without any notice issued under Section 3 5(3), or a notification issued under Section 3 5(1) of the Indian FOREST ACT , 1927 (for short the “Indian FOREST ACT ”), the said lands were treated as forest lands by the Government. This apart, according to the Petitioners, by virtue of orders dated 26th September 1978 passed suo motu by the Collector under Section 22A of the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 (for short the “MPF Act”), the said lands were re-granted to the original owners and were excluded from the provisions of the MPF Act.

4. It is also the case of the Petitioners that possession of the said lands was never taken by the State Government, and the said lands were partitioned between the family members, and effect of the said partition was given in the revenue records vide Mutation Entry Nos. 1457 and 1458 dated 11th July 1984 (annexed at page Nos. 44 and 45 of the Petition). The Petitioners are purchasers of the said lands whose names are duly recorded in the revenue record vide Mutation Entry Nos. 2000 to 2008, 2019 and 2335 as evidenced by copies of the 7/12 extract annexed from pages 31 to 40 of the Petition.

5. In this factual backdrop, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners canvassed the following legal submissions:-

(a) Since no notice under Section 3 5(3) of the Indian FOREST ACT were ever served in relation to the said lands, and neither was there any notification issued under Section 3 5(1) in relation thereto, the said lands can never be termed as a forest or private forest lands. In support of this submission, the learned Counsel relied upon the following judgments:-

(i) Shashikant Kantilal Pokharna Vs. State of Maharashtra (2017 SCC Online Bom 1627)

(ii) Godrej Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra [ 2014 (3) SCC 430 ]

(iii) Rohan Nahar Vs. State of Maharashtra (2025 SCC Online SC 2366)

(b) By virtue of an order dated 26^th September 1978 passed by the Collector under Section 22A of the MPF Act, the said lands were excluded from the purview of the MPF Act. This argument is predicated on the fact that the Collector, under Section 22A of the MPF Act, has passed an order on 26th September 1978 declaring that the said lands shall cease to be a reserved forest within the meaning of the Indian FOREST ACT and be deemed to have been re-granted to the owner and shall be