Mere Issuance Of Notice Under Indian Forest Act Won't Vest Private Forests Under Maharashtra Act : Supreme Court

In a major relief to Maharashtra's private forest land owners, the Supreme Court overturned a Bombay High Court ruling that had vested ownership of private forest land in the State Government based solely on the issuance of a notice under the Indian Forest Act. The Court restored ownership of the private forest land to its owners.

The Court held that the High Court's view was contrary to the precedent in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 3 SCC 430, which made it clear that merely issuing such a notice does not automatically classify the land as “private forest” or cause it to vest in the State under the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act (MPFA).

“We find that the High Court's approach amounts to an attempt to avoid a binding precedent rather than to apply it.”, observed a bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B Varale while allowing a batch of 96 civil appeals filed against the Bombay High Court's judgment.

Brief factual overview

The appeals arise from writ petitions filed by private landholders challenging revenue annotations and mutation entries made from the early 2000s that recorded their lands as affected by forest proceedings, and in many instances recorded ownership in the State. The State's administrative case rested largely on old show-cause notices said to have been issued under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act during the 1960s, Gazette publications of those notices, and later departmental entries and “Golden Register” extracts. Landowners countered that the notices were not personally served as required, no statutory inquiries or final notifications under Section 35(1) were ever completed, possession remained with private owners, and no compensation or contemporaneous action under the Maharashtra Act took place.

The core legal question was whether the mere issuance of a notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act (IFA) was sufficient for land to be classified as a "private forest" and vest with the state under the MPFA. In Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd.'s case, it was held that a mere unserved notice is not enough; the notice must be validly served on the landowner, and the process must be a "live" or "pipeline" proceeding, not a stale one left dormant for decades.

Despite this clear precedent, the Bombay High Court, in its impugned 2018 order, dismissed the petitions of the appellants herein, distinguishing their cases from the Godrej & Boyce ruling.

What the Supreme Court held

The Court reaffirmed the binding precedent in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, and held that a mere Gazette publication or administrative annotation cannot, by itself, establish vesting. For a notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act to be capable of causing vesting under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Act, the notice must have been duly served on the owner, and there must have been a live statutory process capable of culminating in a final notification under Section 35(1). The Court found these preconditions missing across the record in the present batch: there was no proof of personal service, no final notification, and no contemporaneous possession, compensation or exercise of the statutory powers that would effect vesting.

The Court further held that post-facto materials such as recent panchnamas, satellite images, or administrative orders made decades after the appointed day of August 30, 1975 cannot substitute for the statutory sequence that must be completed on or around the appointed day. The Bench described mutation entries as ministerial reflections and not constitutive of title where the statutory predicates are absent

The Court also held that the High Court could not have ingnored the binding precedent in Godrej and Boyce.

“We accordingly hold that the present appeals are indistinguishable in principle from Godrej and Boyce (Supra). The record discloses the same jurisdictional defect... In such circumstances the High Court could not, consistently with Article 141 of the Constitution, avoid the binding ratio by treating immaterial differences as determinative. In our opinion, fidelity to binding precedent and to the statutory scheme admits of no other conclusion than that the impugned order must be set aside.”, the Court held.

On Judicial Discipline

“when a judgment minimizes a binding ratio, ignores missing statutory steps, and seeks to distinguish on immaterial facts, it creates an appearance of a reluctance to accept precedent. Such an approach conveys a measure of pettiness that is inconsistent with the detachment that judicial reasoning demands. In our view, this is an unfortunate departure from the discipline of stare decisis...”, the judgment authored by Justice Nath said.

“Judicial discipline required faithful application of the law declared by this Court under Article 141 of the Constitution…The impugned judgment nonetheless revives positions that Godrej and Boyce (Supra) has rejected.”, the court added.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

“The impugned judgment and order dated 27.09.2018 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay... is set aside. The writ petitions before the High Court in the aforementioned matter are allowed. All mutation orders and any declarations treating the subject lands as private forests are quashed and set aside. Consequential corrections be made in the revenue records.”, the court ordered.

Cause Title: Rohan Vijay Nahar v State of Maharashtra (and connected matters)

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1082

Click here to read the judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) Ms. Madhavi Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Santosh Krishnan, AOR Mr. Sameer Choudhary, Adv. Dr. A.M. Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Ms. Charu Sangwan, AOR Mr. Avishkar Singhvi, Adv. Mr. Shubham S. Dayma, Adv. Ms. Harshita Tyagi, Adv. Dr. A M Singhvi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anil Kaushik, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dhaval Mehrotra, Adv. Mr. Rishi Kumar Singh Gautam, AOR Mr. Rahul Garg, Adv. Ms. Aditi Desai, Adv. Mr. Rajat Rana, Adv. Mr. C.U. Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nitin Mishra, Adv. Ms. Mitali Gupta, Adv. Ms. Vandana Anand, Adv. Mr. Rajat Sehgal, AOR Mr. Prasenjit Keswani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Surya Rajkapoor, Adv. Mr. Upmanyu Tewari, Adv. Mr. Devajyoti Bhattacharya, Adv. Mr. Satyajit Saha, Adv. Mrs. V. D. Khanna, AOR Ms. Shyel Trehan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR Ms. Monisha Mane Bhangale, Adv. Mr. Pranav Sarthi, Adv. Ms. Shivalika Rudrabatla, Adv. Ms. Vidhi Jain, Adv. Ms. Apoorva Singh, Adv. Ms. Harbani Shinh, Adv. Mr. Atul Y Chitale, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sidharth Das, Adv. Ms. Tatini Basu, AOR Mr. Kumar Shashank, Adv. Mr. Vineet Naik, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kunal Vajani, Adv. Mr. Sukand Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Shubhang Tandon, Adv. Ms. Shraddha Chirania, Adv. Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dharav Shah, Adv. Mr. Dhawal Desai, Adv. Ms. Tanesh Paranjape, Adv. Mr. Pranaya Goyal, AOR Mr. Gaurav Agrawal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shardul Singh, Adv. Ms. Prerna Gandhi, Adv. Mr. C. George Thomas, AOR Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vineet Naik, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, AOR Mr. V.A. Gangal, Adv. Ms. Divya Parab, Adv. Mr. Sukand Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. Brij Kishor Sah, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Kumar Pandey, Adv. Mr. Vignesh Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya S. Jadhav, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Ankit Sahu, Adv. *Mr. Shyam Mehta, Sr. Adv. *Mr. varad Kilor, Adv. Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, AOR Mr. Guru Krishna Kumar, Sr. Adv. Ms. Madhavi Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amit Mehta, Adv. Mr. Ooril Panchal, Adv. Mr. Kush Chaturvedi, AOR Mr. Saket Mone, Adv. Mr. Vishesh Kalra, Adv. Ms. Prerna Priyadarshini, Adv. Mr. Neel Kamal Mishra, Adv. Mr. Syed Faraz Alam, Adv. Mr. Atharva Gaur, Adv. Mr. Aayushman Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Shaurya Gupta, Adv. Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Sr. Adv. Mr. Satyajeet Kumar, AOR Mr. Pravartak Pathak, Adv. Mr. Yashodhan Chandurkar, Adv. Ms. Manisha Jain, Adv. Mr. Mansi Jain, Adv. Ms. Roohe Hina Dua, Adv. Ms. Dhanakshi Gamdhi, Adv. Mr. Goutam Prasad, Adv. Mr. Arth Arora, Adv. Ms. Dhankshi Gandhi, Adv. Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Ms. Deeplaxmi S. Matwankar, Adv. Mr. Pravartak Pathak, Adv. Mr. Yashodhan Chandurkar, Adv. Ms. Manshi Jain, Adv. Ms. Abha R. Sharma, AOR Mr. Aniruddh Joshi, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shashibhushan P. Adgaonkar, AOR *Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. *Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shreeyash Uday Lalit, Adv. Mr. Neelam Prasad, Adv. Mr. Archit Jain, Adv. Ms. Runjhun Garg, Adv. Dr. Rukma George, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Vats, Adv. Mr. Sumit Kumar Siddharth, Adv. Mr. Angad Pahal, Adv. Mr. Yudhvir Dalal, Adv. Mr. Lavam Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Kumar Arjun Toppo, Adv. Mr. Ishaan George, AOR *Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, Sr. Adv. Mr. Anish R. Shah, AOR *Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ashwarya Sinha, AOR Ms. Mohini Priya, AOR Mr. Ishaan George, Adv. Dr. Rukma George, Adv. Mr. Archit Jain, Adv. Mr. Sumit Kumar Siddharth, Adv. Mr. Yudhvir Dalal, Adv. Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, AOR Mrs. B. Sunita Rao, AOR Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR 8 Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja, AOR Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, AOR Mr. Ameya Borwankar, Adv. Mr. Parth Sarathi, Adv. Mr. Aashit Kankariya, Adv. Mrs. Anumita Verma, Adv. Mr. Aman Varma, AOR Mr. Vishesh Kalra, Adv. Ms. Smriti Churiwal, Adv. Ms. Riya Wasade, Adv. Ms. Anoushka Deo, Adv. Ms. Sonia Sharma, Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Banju, AOR Mr. Satyajit A Desai, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Gautam, Adv. Mr. Abhinav K. Mutyalwar, Adv. Mr. Sachin Singh, Adv. Mr. Ananya Thapliyal, Adv. Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR Mr. Preetraj R. Dhok, Adv. Mr. Saurav Agarwal, Adv. Mrs. Sonali Jaitley Bakhshi, Adv. Mr. Jaiyesh Bakhshi, Adv. Mr. Ravi Tyagi, AOR Mr. Mayank Mishra, Adv. Ms. Manmilan Sidhu, Adv. Mr. Ankit Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Atharva Koppal, Adv. Ms. Bhumika Bhatnagar, Adv. Ms. Sudiksha Saini, Adv. Mr. Shikhar Misra, Adv. Ms. Prachi Dubey, Adv. Mr. Kunal Cheema, AOR Mr. Shubham Chandankhede, Adv. Mr. Raghav Deshpande, Adv. Ms. Kirti Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amol Chitale, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Pragya Baghel, AOR Mr. R. P. Gupta, AOR Ms. Rekha Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Kanika, Adv. Mr. Raj Singh Rana, AOR Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, AOR Mr. Sagar N.pahune Patil, Adv. Mr. Yash Prashant Sonavane, Adv. Ms. Shruti Munjal, Adv. Mr. Anupam Raina, AOR Ms. Chetna Verma, Adv. Mr. Karan Gaba, Adv. Mr. Joseph Pookkatt, Adv. Mr. Bhuvan Thakker, Adv. Mr. Nilesh Sharma, Adv. Ms. Awantika Manohar, Adv. Ms. Parul Dhurvey, Adv. Mr. Dhawesh Pahuja, Adv. M/S. Ap & J Chambers, AOR Mr. R. Chandrachud, AOR Mr. Amey Nabar, Adv. Mr. Dhuli Venkata Krishna, Adv. Mr. Preetam Shah, Adv. Mr. K. Krishna Kumar, AOR Mr. Gaganjyot Singh, Adv. Ms. Tanya Srivastava, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. K. Parameshwwar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Naman Tandon, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Karan Sachdev, Adv. Ms. Shivali Shah, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv. Dr. Ravindra Sadanand Chingale, AOR Mr. Navneet R., AOR Mr. Shreeyash Uday Lalit, Adv. Ms. Runjhun Garg, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Vats, Adv. Mr. Angad Pahal, Adv. Mr. Lavam Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Ishaan George, AOR Mr. T. V. S. Raghavendra Sreyas, AOR Mr. Satyajit A. Desai, Adv. Mr. Amit K. Pathak, Adv. Mr. Abhinav K. Mutyalwar, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Gautam, Adv. Mr. Sachin Singh, Adv. Mr. Ananya Thapliyal, Adv. Mr. Preetraj R. Dhok, Adv. Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR

Also From Judgment: 'Courts Must Apply Binding Precedents, Can't Sidestep Them By Distinguishing In Name' : Supreme Court Emphasises Judicial Discipline