IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
RAVINDRA V.GHUGE, ASHWIN D.BHOBE
State of Maharashtra, By and through the Chief Conservator of Forests & Director – Appellant
Versus
D. Dayabhai and Co. Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
| 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 2.1 |





















































































Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v/s. State of Maharashtra
Pernod Richord India Pvt. Ltd. v/s.State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr.
Ebrahim Yusuf Lambe vs. Abdul Razak Abdul Rahiman Mulla
Nookala Setharamaiah vs. Kotaiah Naidum
State of Kerala vs. Mohammed Basheer
Union of India vs. S.P. Sharma
Gunwant Kaur vs Municipal Committee
State of Kerala vs. Mohammed Basheer
Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra
Syed Yakoob v/s. K.S. Radhakrishnan
Surya Dev Rai V/s. Ram Chander Rai
International Ore & Fertilizers (India) P.Ltd. vs. ESI Corporation
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 class....
The mandatory nature of service of notice under sub-Section 3 of Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and its significance in determining the classification of a land as a 'Private Forest' under....
The court upheld the State's authority to declare land as reserved forest, emphasizing that tenure-holders cannot claim proprietary rights over such land post-abolition of Zamindari.
The court upheld the principle that claims to ownership over lands designated as reserved forest cannot be established without following lawful de-reservation processes.
The court reaffirmed that the notification under the Indian Forest Act validly vested land with the State, and the appellate authority exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside unchallenged notifica....
The court upheld the validity of ongoing acquisition notifications despite contested claims of possession, establishing that evidence of prior development and forest designations does not nullify acq....
Fraudulent entries in revenue records do not confer legal rights; land designated as forest is public utility land and cannot be claimed without proper legal basis.
Reservation lapses under Section 127 MRTP Act if no acquisition steps within six months of valid purchase notice, upheld even if composite and receipt confirmed by authority's actions and RTI despite....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.