The Bombay High Court has clarified that an entry in land records designating agricultural land as 'Private Forest' cannot be sustained without conclusive proof that statutory notices under the Indian Forest Act were properly served on the landowners and that a formal notification was issued. This ruling reinforces procedural safeguards against arbitrary forest classification and protects property rights of bona fide purchasers.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Lalani Constructions Pvt. Ltd., is the registered owner of four parcels of agricultural land in Village Damat, Taluka Karjat, District Raigad, acquired through a registered Sale Deed dated 29.12.2009 from Alwadi Service Co-Operative Horticulture Society. The petitioner purchased the land for non-agricultural development after obtaining necessary permissions and paying conversion charges from the District Collector. Upon obtaining the 7/12 extract from the land records, the petitioner discovered an entry in the 'other rights' column stating: "Pending enquiry subject to the provisions of the Maharashtra Private Forest Act".
Key Facts
- The land was originally owned by Mehmudmiya Miya Khot, Shankar Laxman Maskar, and Balkrishna Shankar Maskar
- The Alwadi Society purchased the land via registered Sale Deeds dated 20.03.1980 and 13.05.1980
- Mutation Entry No.1919 was recorded on 12.03.2001, introducing the "Private Forest" remark
- The petitioner had no knowledge of any forest declaration or notice prior to purchase
- The petitioner filed representations to the Range Forest Officer requesting deletion of the entry
- Under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the petitioner obtained copies of notices issued under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927
- The notices were addressed to Laxman Dhavu Maskar and Mehmudmiya Dadamiya Khot, but no proof of service or acknowledgment was provided
- No Notification under Section 34-A or Section 35(1) of the Indian Forest Act was produced by the Forest Department
- The land remained in continuous private possession and was never taken over by the Forest Department
Procedural History
- 12.03.2001: Mutation Entry No.1919 recorded in land records with "Private Forest" remark
- 29.12.2009: Petitioner purchased land via registered Sale Deed
- 2010 - 2024: Petitioner made repeated representations to Forest Department for deletion of entry
- 2025: Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.6332 of 2025 before the Bombay High Court seeking deletion of the "Private Forest" entry from 7/12 extract
The Parties' Positions
The petitioner contends that the entry is illegal and unsustainable because:
- No valid Notification under Section 35(1) was issued
- No proof exists that notices under Section 35(3) were received by the original owners
- The land was never declared as forest under Section 34-A
- The Forest Department never took physical possession
- The entry violates the petitioner’s right to peaceful enjoyment of property
The State did not file a reply affidavit and relied solely on the existing land records.
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks:
- Deletion of the "Pending enquiry subject to the provisions of the Maharashtra Private Forest Act" entry from the 7/12 extract for Survey Nos. 233/1, 233/3, 233/4, and 233/6
- Direction to the Forest Department to update land records accordingly
- Costs of litigation
The Legal Issue
The central question is whether an entry in the 7/12 extract designating land as "Private Forest" under the Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975, can be legally sustained in the absence of proof that notices under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, were duly served on the landowners and that a formal Notification under Section 35(1) was issued.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel, Ms. Sultana V. Sonawane, relied on Godrej And Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2014) 3 SCC 430, which held that for land to be declared a private forest, the notice under Section 35(3) must be proven to have been received by the owner. She argued that mere issuance of notices without acknowledgment or proof of service renders the entire process invalid. She further contended that the Maharashtra Private Forest Act requires either a prior declaration under Section 34-A or a valid Notification under Section 35(1), neither of which existed. The petitioner emphasized that the land remained in private possession and was never taken over, making the entry legally unsustainable.
For the Respondent
The State did not file a reply affidavit or present any evidence to substantiate the legality of the entry. The Additional Government Pleader, Mr. N.C. Walimbe, did not dispute the absence of proof of service or notification but relied on the existence of the entry in the land records.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the statutory framework under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and the Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975. It noted that the latter Act only applies to land that was already declared as forest under Section 34-A or where a Notification under Section 35(1) was in force before 30.08.1975, or where notices under Section 35(3) were issued and received.
"In absence of any proof of receipt of notice, it cannot be said that the notice has been duly received by the owner."
The Court cited Godrej And Boyce to affirm that the burden lies on the State to prove service of notice. The mere existence of notices in the file, without acknowledgment or proof of delivery, is insufficient. The Court also referenced Rohan Vijay Nahar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 2366) to underscore that forest declarations must follow due process.
The Court rejected the argument that a "pending enquiry" justifies restricting property rights. It held that such an entry, without procedural compliance, violates Article 300A of the Constitution and the principle of legitimate expectation. The Court emphasized that the petitioner, as a bona fide purchaser, cannot be held liable for the Forest Department’s failure to follow statutory procedure.
The Verdict
The petition succeeded. The Court directed the Deputy Conservator of Forests, Karjat, District Raigad, to ascertain within four months from the date of this order whether:
- Notices under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act were duly served upon the original owners of Survey Nos. 233/1, 233/3, 233/4, and 233/6
- A Notification under Section 35(1) was issued and remains in force
If proof of service and notification is established, the entry shall be confirmed. Otherwise, the entry in the "other rights" column of the 7/12 extract shall be deleted. The Forest Department must issue a speaking order after providing the petitioner a hearing. The petitioner may approach the Court if the grievance remains unredressed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Proof of Service Is Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must insist on production of signed acknowledgments or postal receipts for notices issued under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act
- Mere file notings or photocopies of notices without service proof are legally insufficient
- In land disputes involving forest entries, challenge the absence of service proof as a jurisdictional defect
Forest Declarations Cannot Be Presumed
- The presumption of regularity does not apply to statutory forest declarations
- The State bears the burden of proving compliance with Section 35(1) and 35(3)
- Land records entries based on unverified notices are voidable, not merely irregular
Bona Fide Purchasers Are Protected
- A purchaser who buys land in good faith, after due diligence and payment of conversion charges, cannot be penalized for prior procedural lapses
- Any restriction on land use based on unproven forest claims must be lifted pending proper adjudication
- Writ petitions under Article 226 are maintainable to challenge illegal entries in 7/12 extracts
