Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Bom) 528

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
RAVINDRA V.GHUGE, ASHWIN D.BHOBE, JJ.
The State of Maharashtra, By and through the Chief Conservator of Forests & Director - Petitioner
Versus
D. Dayabhai and Co. Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
Writ Petition No.3205 Of 2018 With Interim Application No.2785 Of 2020 With Writ Petition No.10024 Of 2023 With Interim Application No.7016 Of 2024
Decided On : 20-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Janak Dwarkadas, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Anant G. Mallya and Mr. Sachin H. Kankal, AGP, Mr. Chirag Balsara a/w. Mr. Sanjay Borkar, Mr. Jaydeep Deo & Ms. Rashmi Chavan i/b. Ms. Minal Chandnani and Mr. Rajesh Ranglani, Mr. Karl Tamboly a/w Mr. Vishesh Srivastav, Mr. Anubhav Singh, Mr. Pratik Thorat and Mr. Nikhil Waje i/b. I.C. Legal, Mr. R. S. Apte, Senior Advocate i/b. Mr. Mandar Limaye, Mr. Ashutosh Gole a/w. Mr. Nikhil Waje, Mr. Kunal Dwarkadas a/w Mr. Aniket Kharote i/b Jayakars, Mr. S.G. Karandikar.

Notice under Section 35(3) IFA for MPFA vesting must be by authorised officer, served on true owner pre- or proximately to appointed day; invalid notice fails strict compliance, preventing land classification as private forest.

Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 - Sections 2(f)(iii), 3, 6 - Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Section 35(3) - Notice issued day before appointed day by unauthorised forest guard to non-owner entity, served post-appointed day without publication or hearing - Not 'pipeline' or 'live' notice; strict compliance mandatory for vesting as private forest - MRT order declaring land non-forest and excluding from acquisition upheld as non-perverse. (Paras 36-64, 81-88)

(B) Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Section 127 - Acquired reservation land under registered transfer deed mutated in planning authority records - No challenge to development plan reservations or acquisition - Statutory obligation to issue TDR/DRC despite forest claim, as land non-forest per MRT; green cover to be maintained. (Paras 65-80, 89-92)

Facts of the case:
Dispute over land claimed as private forest via notice under repealed Section 35(3); landowner sought exclusion for developed portions offering alternatives; MRT held entire land non-forest post-inquiry; planning authority acquired portions for public uses via deeds without forest objection; forest challenged MRT, sought vesting declaration.

Findings of Court:
Notice invalid due to unauthorised issuer, wrong addressee, post-appointed service, no further steps; no possession or compensation proof; land remained private, used for non-forest activities; planning authority entitled to utilise acquired land maintaining greenery.

Issues: Whether notice qualified land as private forest under Section 2(f)(iii) for vesting on appointed day; validity of MRT expanding inquiry; entitlement to TDR post-acquisition despite forest claim.

Ratio Decidendi: 'Issued' in Section 2(f)(iii) includes service on true owner by authorised officer; stale/invalid notices lapse; prolonged inaction precludes vesting; appellate/revisional court interferes only if perverse; planning authority must compensate via TDR for lapsed reservations absent defects.

Result: Writ Petition challenging MRT dismissed; writ for TDR directions allowed, mandating issuance within 21 days.

Table of Content
1. procedural history and petitions overview (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. parties' pleadings summaries (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. state's arguments on godrej & rohan nahar (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
4. landowner's counter on notice validity (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
5. respondents' submissions on tenancy (Para 29 , 30 , 31)
6. factual analysis of notice defects (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51)
7. mrt issues and godrej application (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58)
8. notice invalidity due to non-service (Para 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64)
9. subsequent acquisitions by tmc (Para 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80)
10. no vesting; petitions dismissed (Para 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94)

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

INDEX

Sr. No.	Particulars
A	Preface
B	Summary of the Pleadings and averments of the State
C	Summary of the Pleadings and averments of the Land Owner (Respondent No.1/ Company)
D	Summary of the Pleadings and averments of Respondent No.2 (Deceased, through LRs 2.1, 2.3 to 2.12)
E	Summary of the Pleadings and averments of Respondent No.8 (Thane Municipal Corporation)
F	Summary of the Oral and Written submissions on behalf of the State by Senior Advocate, Mr. Dwarkadas
(i)	Submissions on Godrej & Boyce (supra) and Rohan Nahar (supra) and rejoinder submissions.
G	Summary of the submissions of the learned Advocate, Mr. Balsara on behalf of Respondent No.1 (Land Owner)
H	Summary of the comments of Respondent No.1 on the Petitioner’s rejoinder.
I	Summary of the submissions of the learned Advocate, Mr. Karl Tamboly on behalf of Respondent Nos.2.1, 2.3 to 2.12
J	Compilations of Judgments relied upon by Respondent Nos. 2.1, 2.3 to 2.12
K	Summary of the submissions of Senior Advocate, Mr. R.S. Apte on behalf of the Thane Municipal Corporation
L	Our Analysis and Discussion
(i)	Issues framed by the MRT and its conclusions
(ii)	Consideration of the facts before us, in the light of the law laid down in GODREJ & BOYCE
(iii)	Crucial factors
(iv)	Subsequent Events Relevant for Writ Petition No.10024 of 2023
(v)	Our Final Conclusions and Order in Writ Petition No. 3205 of 2018
(vi)	Order in Writ Petition No.10024 of 2023
M	Article X – Copy of the Notice dated 29.08.1975
N	ANNEXURES TO THIS JUDGMENT W.R.T WRIT PETITION NO. 3205 OF 2018
(A)	Petitioner’s note in respect of the Sanjay Gandhi National Park Division (Tendered by Mr. Janak Dwarkadas)
(B)	Written Notes of arguments on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Godrej and Boyce (supra) and Rohan Nahar (supra) (Tendered by Mr. Janak Dwarkadas)
(C)	Written notes of arguments on behalf of Respondent No.1 (Tendered by Mr. Chirag Balsara)
(D)	Modification/ Additions made by Respondent No.1 (Tendered by Mr. Chirag Balsara)
(E)	The Petitioner’s note in rejoinder to Respondent No.1’s arguments (Tendered by Mr. Janak Dwarkadas)
(F)	Submissions on behalf of Respondent No.1 to the Petitioner’s rejoinder (Tendered by Mr. Chirag Balsara)
(G)	Submissions on behalf of Respondent Nos.2.1, 2.3 to 2.12 (Tendered by Mr. Karl Tamboly)
O	ANNEXURES IN WRIT PETITION NO. 10024 OF 2023
(H)	Short note on behalf of the Petitioners (Tendered by Mr. Chirag Balsara)
(I)	Note on behalf of Respondent Nos.2 to 5 (Tendered by Mr. R. S. Apte)
(J)	Submissions of the Respondent Corporation (Tendered by Mr. Mandar Limaye)

PREFACE

1. Rule in both the Writ Petitions. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties. This Court has not granted any interim relief in the First Writ Petition No. 3205 of 2018.

2. The First Petition (Writ Petition No.3205 of 2018) is filed by the Petitioner State, was listed before the Single Judge Bench, as per Chapter XVII, Rule 18 (1) of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. By an order dated 4^th January, 2024, passed by the Hon’ble the Chief Justice, on request of the parties, Writ Petition No.3205