In the present case, admittedly there is no declaration /
notice / notification in respect of the said lands being classified and
declared as 'private forest'. Further under the provisions of Section 2
read with Section 3 of the State Act, the said lands have to be a 'forest' before it could be classified as a 'private forest' and thereafter declared to be a 'reserved forest'. According to the Petitioners the provisions of Section 3(2) of the State Act expressly excludes land under cultivation i.e. 'agricultural land' even if it is comprised in a 'private forest'. The said lands stand outside the purview of the provisions of Section 2 of the Central Act as they are not a forest and if that be so there can be no question of de-reservation or denotification or seeking approval for the use of forest land for non-forest purpose. {Para 12}
13. The entire controversy in the present case has arisen due to
the unilateral Mutation entry No.720 recorded in the Mutation
Register pertaining to the said lands which classified the said lands as 'forest lands'; this mutation entry was solely based on the
communication dated 11.11.2005 addressed by the Respondent No.3 - Deputy Conservation of Forest to the Respondent No.2 - Collector
without any substantive basis / evidence as observed by us.
13.1. We have noted that the said Mutation entry was effected
with reference to the State Act. The Petitioners therefore filed the
statutory appeal seeking adjudication under the provisions of Section 6 of the State Act. However, once the Respondent No.2 - Collector has declared the said lands as 'not private forest' under Section 6 of the State Act, the applicability of the Central Act to the said lands does not arise. As seen, the said lands have been certified as 'agricultural lands' in the various revenue records and as such under Section 3(2) of the State Act, on this count also they cannot be deemed to be 'forest land' much less private forest land. Save and except the unilateral Mutation entry, admittedly there is no other evidence or material placed on record by the Respondents to classify, certify or notify the said lands as 'forest land'. The reasoned decision/order passed by the Respondent No.2 - Collector declaring the said lands as 'not private forest' under the State Act therefore decides the status of the said lands.
14. Under Section 2 of the Central Act the approval of the
Central Government is necessary only if the land is a forest and if the State Government passes an order directing that any reserved forest shall cease to be reserved; or any forest land is used for non-forest purpose; or any forest land is assigned to a private person or a nongovernment organization; or any forest land may be cleared of trees or re-afforestation. Thus it is clear that for the provisions of Section 2 of the Central Act to apply, it it necessary in the first place that the said lands have to be 'forest land'. However if the said lands are not forest land then the provisions of Section 2 of the Act of 1980 are inapplicable and thus the permission sought by the Respondent No.2 - Collector from the Central Government with respect to its decision of
declaration of the said lands as 'not private forest' is wholly illegal.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 95 OF 2020
Sankalp Resorts Limited Vs State of Maharashtra,
CORAM : S. J. KATHAWALLA & MILIND N. JADHAV, JJ.
PRONOUNCED ON : 15.03.2022.
JUDGMENT (Per : S.J. Kathawalla & Milind N. Jadhav, JJ.)
By the present petition, the Petitioners have prayed for the
following reliefs:
"(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of
Mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction directing the 2nd Respondent to issue his
Judgment under Section 6 of the Maharashtra Private
Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975 in terms of its Order
dated January 13, 2011 without recourse to the Union
of India under The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980;
(b) Without prejudice to prayer (a) above and strictly in
the alternative thereto, the Hon'ble Court be pleased to
direct the 5th Respondent to grant its approval under
Section 2 of The Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980
within such time as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and/or proper;
(c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of
Mandamus or a writ, order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or
direction directing the 4th Respondent to:
(i) delete the Mutation Entry No.720 dated
December 24, 2005 in the revenue records
maintained in respect of the lands described in
Exhibit I hereto;
2 of 33
wp.95.20.doc
(ii) intimate all concerned Land and Revenue
Authorities to update their respective records of
the deletion of Mutation Entry No.720 dated
December 24, 2005."
2. Before we advert to the submissions made on behalf of the
respective parties, it will be apposite to state the relevant facts in brief.
2.1. The Petitioner No.1 is the owner of following six parcels of
land situated in revenue village Bhushi, Taluka Maval, District Pune,
within the limits of the Municipal Council of Lonavala (for short: "the
said lands"):-
SURVEY
NO.
AREA
H R
113 A/1 1 94.25
113 B/2 1 74
113 B/1 1 10
114 2 27
115 5 38
116/1 3 85
2.2. The Petitioner No.1 has assigned development rights to the
Petitioner No.2 in respect of the said lands under registered
development agreements.
2.3. The Petitioners assert that the following documentary
evidence in respect of the said lands prove that the said lands are /
were agricultural lands:
3 of 33
wp.95.20.doc
i. 7/12 extracts i.e. revenue records of the said lands;
ii. judgment and order dated 31.07.1976 passed by the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Poona in Ceiling Appeal No.
498 of 1976 in respect of Survey Nos. 113 and 113A;
iii. order dated 22.01.1992 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer,
Haveli, Pune in respect of Survey Nos. 113/A/1, 113/B/2
and 113/B/1 regularizing the transfer of said lands in favour
of the Petitioner No.1's predecessor in title;
iv. commencement certificate dated 14.05.1997 issued by the
Lonavala Municipal Council in respect of Survey Nos.
113/A(pt), 113/B(pt), 114, 115 and 116/1;
v. final development plan of the year 1978 classifying the said
lands as 'agricultural lands';
vi. certificate dated 02.11.2011 issued by the Lonavala
Municipal Council certifying that the said lands were
included in the 'agricultural' or 'non-development' plan
approved on 20.01.1978;
vii. zone certificate dated 12.07.2018 issued by the Lonavala
Municipal Council classifying the said lands as 'agricultural
lands'.
4 of 33
wp.95.20.doc
2.4. In view of the above documentary evidence it is the
Petitioners' case that the said lands are not 'private forest land' or
'forest' as contemplated under the provisions of the Maharashtra
Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 ("the State Act") and/or the
Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 ("the Central Act").
2.5. On 11.11.2005, the Respondent No.3 - Deputy Conservator
of Forest issued a letter to the Tahsildar - Maval stating that the said
lands along with several other lands stood vested in the State
Government under the provisions of the State Act and the Maharashtra
Private Forest (Acquisition) Rules, 1980 ("the said Rules"). The said
letter further stated that all non-forest activities were permissible on
the said lands only after obtaining prior permission of the Central
Government and necessary mutation entry in the 7/12 extracts of the
said lands be immediately effected and copies thereof be sent to the
Respondent No.3 for record.
2.6. Immediately thereafter Respondent No.4 - Talathi, Taluka -
Lonavala recorded Mutation Entry No. 720 in the Mutation Register
notifying the said lands as 'forest land'. Accordingly the 7/12 extracts
of the said lands were mutated recording the name of the Forest
Department in the 'other rights' column of the 7/12 extracts. By virtue
of this mutation entry the said lands came to be described / declared
5 of 33
wp.95.20.doc
as 'forest lands'.
2.7. Since the Mutation entry No. 720 was entered into with
reference to the provisions of the State Act, the Petitioners raised a
dispute and filed three statutory Appeals bearing Nos. 6/2008, 7/2008
and 10/2008 before the Collector under Section 6 of the State Act to
challenge the vesting of the said lands under the State Act and for
setting aside the Mutation Entry No.720. On 13.01.2011, the
Appellate Authority held that the said lands are 'not private forest' and
passed a non-speaking order without giving detailed reasons while
reserving the judgment. The order dated 13.01.2011 reads thus:
"Draft order prepared declaring suit land as 'not private
forest' u/s 6 of M. Pr. Forest act, 1975. Matter referred to
GoI through GoM for permission u/s 2 of Forest
(Conservation) act 1980."
2.8. On 13.01.2011 Respondent No. 2 - Collector referred the
draft order declaring the State lands as 'not private forest' under
Section 6 of the State Act to the State Government for seeking sanction
from the Central Government under Section 2 of the Central Act
before issuing the final order.
2.9. Between 05.10.2011 and 29.03.2018, the Petitioners
addressed 25 letters to the Respondents on 05.10.2011, 11.05.2012,
16.05.2012, 30.05.2012, 30.07.2012, 08.11.2012, 04.01.2013,
6 of 33
wp.95.20.doc
02.05.2013, 09.05.2013, 04.06.2013, 19.09.2013, 20.09.2013,
08.11.2013, 12.12.2013, 24.01.2014, 05.06.2014, 19.07.2014,
29.01.2016, 21.04.2016, 20.06.2016, 25.08.2016, 10.10.2016,
20.10.2016, 13.06.2017, 29.03.2018, inter alia, seeking a copy of a
detailed judgment and speaking order passed by the Respondent No. 2
- Collector and deletion of Mutation entry No. 720 in view of the nonapplicability
of the provisions of Section 2 of the Central Act to the
Petitioners' case.
2.10. On 15.07.2014 the Chief Conservator of Forests
(Mantralaya) addressed a letter to the Respondent No. 2 - Collector
calling upon the Collector to furnish the details pertaining to the said
lands for procuring sanction from the Central Government.
A copy of this letter was endorsed to the Director of the Petitioner
No.1.
2.11. On 16.06.2016 the Private Secretary of the Minister
(Finance & Budget) and Forests (Mantralaya) addressed a letter to the
Petitioner No. 2 informing that the Petitioners' case was forwarded to
the Secretary, Forests for appropriate action.
2.12. In response to the Petitioners' 25 letters addressed between
05.11.2011 and 29.03.2018 as stated above, the Petitioners received
7 of 33
wp.95.20.doc
the aforementioned two letters from the Respondent No. 1 - State.
2.13. On 26.09.2019, the Petitioners filed the present Writ
Petition.
3. Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing
for the Petitioners after taking us through the pleadings, has made the
following submissions:-
i. that the Central Government permission is not required
under the provisions of Section 2 of the Act of 1980 for
correction or rectification of an incorrect mutation entry in
respect of land which is never designated or classified as
'forest land';
ii. that the said lands are agricultural lands and there is
documentary evidence including the draft speaking order
placed on record to prove that the said lands are not 'forest
lands';
iii. that the Mutation Entry No.720, entered unilaterally and
solely on the basis of the letter dated 11.11.2005 received
from the Respondent No.3 in the revenue record and 7/12
extracts of the said lands, notifying the said lands as 'forest
lands' is illegal and erroneous; the said lands were never
8 of 33
wp.95.20.doc
described and declared as 'forest' or 'private forest' or
'reserved forest' under the provisions of the State Act or the
Central Act; that the Petitioners were never issued any
notices under the provisions of Section 35 of the Indian
Forest Act, 1927 (for short: "the Act of 1927") prior to the
enactment of the State;
iv. that since the Mutation entry No.720 was effected pursuant
to the letter dated 11.11.2005 addressed by the Respondent
No.3 - Deputy Conservator of Forest under the State Act, the
Respondent No.2 - Collector being the Appellate Authority
under Section 6 of the State Act has jurisdiction to hear and
decide the Petitioner's Dispute Application declaring the said
lands as 'forest';
v. that no steps as required under the provisions of Section 4 of
the State Act were taken by the Respondents after the
appointed date, 30.08.1975 i.e. coming into force of the
State Act; the Respondents never contended that the said
lands were 'private forest' or 'forest' or stood acquired under
the State Act or stood vested in the State Government;
vi. that no notification declaring the said lands as 'forest' has
been issued under the provisions of the Act of 1927 prior to
the enactment of the State Act or the Central Act;
9 of 33
wp.95.20.doc
vii. that the said lands are not acquired / never acquired under
the provisions of the State Act and/or the Act of 1927, nor
there is any declaration to the effect that the said lands are
'forest land' or 'private forest' or 'reserved forest' prior to the
insertion of the Mutation entry No.720;
viii. that physical possession of the said lands has always
remained with the Petitioner;
ix. that the Respondent No. 2 - Collector, Pune by his final
judgment and order dated 13.01.2011 has specifically held
that the said lands are 'not private forest'; that the reasoned
order of the Respondent No.2 - Collector declaring the said
lands as 'not private forest' rests the issue in favour of the
Petitioner and therefore the provisions of Section 2 of the
Central Act are inapplicable to the said lands;
4. PER CONTRA, Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni, learned Advocate
appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 4 has drawn our attention
to the Affidavit-in-Reply dated 05.03.2020 filed by Sanjay Baburao
Marne, Assistant Conservator of Forests, Pune Forest Division and
further Affidavit-in-Reply dated 16.04.2021 filed by Sandesh Ravindra
Shirke, Sub-Divisional Officer, Taluka - Maval, District - Pune and
10 of 33
wp.95.20.doc
contended that the draft order by the Collector declaring the said
lands as 'not private forest' requires the permission of the Government
of India under the provisions of Section 2 of the Central Act and until
such permission is received, the said lands are deemed to be 'forest
land'. He has made the following submissions to oppose grant of
reliefs in the present petition:
i. that the draft order dated 13.01.2011 and the reasoned
speaking order annexed to the Affidavit-in-Reply dated
16.04.2021 declaring the said lands as 'not private forest' has
no existence in law and cannot be relied upon by the
Petitioners for seeking any reliefs much less the reliefs
sought in the petition; that the draft order shall become final
only on receipt of the permission from the Government of
India under the provisions of Section 2 of the Central Act
and only thereafter can come into force;
ii. that the condition for seeking permission under Section 2 of
the Central Act is just, legal and absolutely mandatory and
cannot be dispensed with under any circumstances as
Section 2 of the Central Act begins with a non-obstante
clause having a complete overriding effect on all the laws in
force in the State, including the State Act; the said Section
explicitly prohibits the State Government or any other
11 of 33
wp.95.20.doc
Authority from issuing any order without the prior approval
of the Central Government;
iii. that under the provisions of sub-section 3 of Section 3 of the
Central Act there is a deeming provision which states that all
'private forests' vested in the State Government shall be
deemed to be 'reserved forest' within the meaning of the
Central Act; thus to declare that any 'reserved forest' shall
cease to be 'reserved forest' or that any 'forest land' be used
for any 'non-forest purpose', the prior permission of the
Central Government is a condition precedent for the State
Government to issue / pass the final order;
iv. that in the present case the Petitioners desire to establish a
resort, hotel, club and other ancillary activities on the said
lands, which is admittedly for 'non-forest purposes';
therefore on a cumulative reading of Section 2 of the Central
Act with Section 6 of the State Act, when a case is under
consideration under Section 6 of the State Act, before
issuing the final declaration under Section 6, prior
permission of the Central Government is required to be
obtained;
v. that in terms of the State Government circular dated
16.12.2004, in respect of enquiry under Section 6 of the
12 of 33
wp.95.20.doc
State Act, it is mandatory on the part of the Collector to
prepare the proposal and submit the same to the State
Government for seeking permission from the Central
Government under the provisions of Section 2 of the Central
Act and only after receipt of permission, issue the
order/certificate under the provisions of Section 6 read with
Section 22 of the State Act; that in the present case
Respondent No.2 - Collector has referred the Petitioner's
case to the State Government for seeking permission under
Section 2 of the Central Act and the same is awaited.
4.1. In view of the above submissions, Advocate Mr. Kulkarni has
prayed for dismissal of the present Writ Petition.
5. Mr. Mandar Limaye, learned Advocate appearing for
Respondent No.5 - Union of India (Central Government) has drawn
our attention to the Affidavit-in-Reply dated 24.08.2020 filed by Shri.
Chandulal Tashildar, Assistant Inspector General of Forest, Ministry of
Environment, Forest and Climate Change, Nagpur and has contended
as follows:
i. that though it is the case of the State Government that the
draft order is referred to the Central Government for
13 of 33
wp.95.20.doc
obtaining approval under the provisions of Section 2 of the
Central Act, the Ministry of Environment and Forest is not in
receipt of any such proposal / case from the State
Government of Maharashtra in respect of the said lands;
ii. that the said lands fall within the ambit and purview of the
State Government of Maharashtra and the provisions of the
State Act and since the State Government is the repository of
the land records of the forest areas/lands, it is the primary
responsibility of the State Government to determine the
status of the said lands or any parcel of land in the State as
to whether the same is a 'private forest', 'reserved forest'
and/or 'forest' under the provisions of the State Act while
giving due regard to the provisions of the Central Act;
iii. that in the present case after following the due process of
law and enquiry as contemplated under the provisions of
Section 6 of the State Act, the draft speaking order produced
on record by the State Government has declared the said
lands as 'not private forest' and the Central Government has
no role to play in the same.
5.1. Advocate Mr. Limaye has called upon the Court to pass
appropriate orders.
14 of 33
wp.95.20.doc
6. We have perused the material on record, Affidavit-in-Reply
filed on behalf of the Respondents, considered the submissions made
by the learned Advocates for the parties and the statutory provisions
relied upon by them.
6.1. The issue as to whether the said lands are 'forest land' /
'private forest' / 'reserved forest' is now put to rest by virtue of the
draft speaking order passed by the Respondent No.2 - Collector
declaring the said lands as 'not private forest'.
6.2. The only question that now arises for determination is
whether the draft speaking order is subject to the provisions of Section
2 of the Central Act and whether the approval of the Central
Government is a condition precedent before issuing the final order.
Depending upon this adjudication, the Petitioners have sought deletion
of the Mutation entry No. 720 as a consequential relief.
7. Before we proceed to give our findings, it will be apposite to
refer to the relevant statutory provisions for adjudicating the present
case.
7.1. Section 2(c-i) of the State Act defines 'forest' and reads
thus:-
15 of 33
wp.95.20.doc
"(c-i) "forest" means a tract of land covered with trees
(whether standing, felled, found or otherwise), shrubs,
bushes, or woody vegetation, whether of natural growth or
planted by human agency and existing or being maintained
with or without human effort, or such tract of land on which
such growth is likely to have an effect on the supply of
timber, fuel, forest produce, or grazing facilities, or on
climate, stream flow, protection of land from erosion, or
other such matters and includes -
(i) land covered with stumps of trees of forest;
(ii) land which is part of a forest or lies within it or
was part of a forest or was lying within a forest on the
30th day of August, 1975;
(iii) such pasture land, water-logged or cultivable or
non-cultivable land, lying within or linked to a forest,
as may be declared to be forest by the State
Government;
(iv) forest land held or let for purpose of agriculture
or for any purposes ancillary thereto;
(v) all the forest produce therein, whether standing,
felled, found or otherwise."
7.2. Section 2(f) of the State Act defines 'private forest' and reads
thus:-
"2(f). "private forest" means any forest which is not the
property of the Government and includes,
(i) any land declared before the appointed day to be
a forest under section 34A of the Forest Act;
(ii) any forest in respect of which any notification
issued under sub-section (1) of section 35 of the
Forest Act, is in force immediately before the
appointed day;
(iii) any land in respect of which a notice has been
issued under sub-section (3) of section 35 of the
Forest Act, but excluding an area not exceeding
two hectares in extent as the Collector may
specify in this behalf;
(iv) land in respect of which a notification has been
issued under section 38 of the Forest Act;
(v) in a case where the State Government and any
other person are jointly interested in the forest,
the interest of such person in such forest;
(vi) sites of dwelling houses constructed in such forest
which are considered to be necessary for the
convenient enjoyment or use of the forest land
lands appurtenant thereto;"
16 of 33
wp.95.20.doc
7.3. Section 3 of the State Act provides for vesting of private
forests in the State Government and reads thus:-
"3. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for
the time being in force or in any settlement, grant,
agreement, usage, custom or any decree or order of any
Court, Tribunal or authority or any other document, with
effect on and from the appointed day, all private forests in
the State shall stand acquired and vest, free from all
encumbrances, in, and shall be deemed to be, with all rights
in or over the same or appertaining thereto, the property of
the State Government, and all rights, title and interest of the
owner or any person other than Government subsisting in
any such forest on the said day shall be deemed to have been
extinguished.
(2) Nothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply
to so much extent of land comprised in a private forest as is
held by an occupation or tenant and is lawfully under
cultivation on the appointed day and is not in excess of the
ceiling area provided by section 5 of the Maharashtra
Agriculture Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, for the
time being in force or any building or structure standing
thereon or appurtenant thereto.
(3) All private forests vested in the State Government
under subsection (1) shall be deemed to be reserved forests
within the meaning of the Forest Act."
7.4. Section 6 of the State Act pertains to raising of a dispute by
the land owner and deals with the power of the Collector to decide the
dispute / question as to whether or not any private forest or portion
thereof has vested in the State Government and reads thus:-
"6. Where any question arises as to whether or not
any forest is a private forest, or whether or not any private
forest or portion thereof has vested in the State Government
or whether or not any dwelling house constructed in a forest
stands acquired under this Act, the Collector shall decide the
question, and the decision of the Collector shall, subject to
the decision of the Tribunal in appeal which may be
preferred to the Tribunal within sixty days from the date of
17 of 33
wp.95.20.doc
the decision of the Collector, or the order of the State
Government under Section 18, be final."
7.5. Section 2 of the Central Act pertains to restrictions on the
de-reservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose
and reads thus:-
"2. Restriction on the de-reservation of forests or use
of forest land for non-forest purpose. - Notwithstanding
anything contained in any other law for the time being in
force in a State, no State Government or other authority
shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central
Government, any order directing,—
(i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the
expression “reserved forest” in any law for the time
being in force in that State) or any portion thereof,
shall cease to be reserved;
(ii) that any forest-land or any portion thereof may be
used for any non-forest purpose;
(iii) that any forest-land or any portion thereof may be
assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private
person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any
other organisation not owned, managed or controlled
by Government;
(iv) that any forest-land or any portion thereof may be
cleared of trees which have grown naturally in that
land or portion, for the purpose of using it for
reafforestation."
[Explanation.- For the purposes of this section 'nonforest
purpose" means the breaking up or clearing of
any forest-land or portion thereof for -
(a) the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms,
oil bearing plants, horticultural crops or medicinal
plants;
(b) any purpose other than reafforestation;
but does not include any work relating or ancillary to
conservation, development and management of forests
and wild life, namely, the establishment of checkposts,
fire lines, wireless communications and
construction of fencing, bridges and culverts, dams,
waterholes, trench marks, boundary marks, pipelines
or other like purposes.]
8. Section 2(c-i) of the State Act defines 'forest' and the
18 of 33
wp.95.20.doc
definition is self-explanatory. Section 2(f) of the State Act defines
'private forest' which relates to the property not belonging to the
Government and includes any land/forest which is so declared under
Section 34A or in respect of which notification under Section 35(1) is
in force or in respect of which notice under Section 35(3) has been
issued or in respect of which notification under Section 38 has been
issued. Thus, on the appointed day i.e. 30.08.1975, the date of
coming into force of the State Act, if any proceedings under the
provisions of Sections 34A, 35(1), 35(3) or 38 of the Act of 1927 are
pending or in force then such land or forest is defined as 'private
forest'. The effect of pendency of any such proceeding under the Act
of 1927 on the appointed day is given in Section 3 of the State Act
which provides for vesting of private forests in the State Government
on the appointed day. It is pertinent to note that Section 3(1) states
that all private forests in the State shall stand acquired and vest in the
State Government which implies that such lands / forests have to be
covered by the definition of 'private forest' in Section 2(f) of the State
Act. However, in the event if any owner / person is aggrieved and a
question arises as to whether or not a forest is a private forest or any
private forest or portion thereof has vested in the State Government,
then under Section 6 of the State Act such owner / person can file an
appeal to the Collector and dispute the status of the land as to whether
or nor the said land is forest / private forest or whether or not any
19 of 33
wp.95.20.doc
private forest or portion thereof has vested in the State Government.
8.1. In the present case we are concerned with the Mutation
entry No. 720 which came to be effected by the Respondent No. 4
after receipt of letter dated 11.11.2005 from the Respondent No. 3.
On effecting the Mutation entry, the said lands came to be declared as
forest land. Hence, under the provisions of Section 6, the Petitioners
raised a dispute that the said lands are 'not forest land' or 'private
forest' and have not stood vested in the State Government on the
appointed date that is the date of coming into effect of the State Act.
It is pertinent to note that the letter dated 11.11.2005 addressed by
the Respondent No. 3 does not refer to pendency of any proceedings /
notice in respect of the said lands under the provisions of the Act of
1927 on the appointed date so as to bring the said lands under the
ambit of the definition of 'private forest' under Section 2(f) of the State
Act. The letter dated 11.11.2005 on a closer scrutiny merely states that
the said lands along with several other lands have stood vested in the
State Government under the provisions of the State Act and the said
Rules and all non-authorized activities on the said lands would be
permissible only after obtaining prior permission of the Central
Government. Save and except this reason, there is no other reason to
determine the vesting of the said lands in the State Government under
20 of 33
wp.95.20.doc
the provisions of the State Act and the said Rules.
8.2. The Petitioners have placed on record sufficient material to
prove that the said lands admittedly are agricultural lands and not
'forest land'. Admittedly, there is no documentary proof available with
the Respondents to establish that the said lands are "private forest" or
"reserved forest". In fact, the Respondents never treated the said lands
as 'forest land'. The Petitioners submit that admittedly, no notification
and / or notices, either under Section 35 or 38 of the Act of 1927 or
under Section 21 of the State Act were ever published and / or issued
in respect of the said lands; that no entry is made in the "Golden
Register" maintained by the Respondent No. 1 recording that the said
lands stood acquired as "forest lands."
8.3. Section 2 of the Central Act refers to restrictions on the dereservation
of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose.
Perusal of this Section shows that the said provision applies to forests
or use of forest land for non-forest purpose and clearly implies that the
land in question to which the said provision applies should be reserved
forests or forest land or any portion of forest land. The said Section
states that no State Government shall make except with the prior
approval of the Central Government any order directing any reserved
forest or any forest land or any portion thereof to be dealt with or de-
21 of 33
wp.95.20.doc
reserved. It is implicit by the bare reading of the Section that the said
provision applies in the case of reserved forest / forest land or any
portion thereof. In the present case Respondent No.2 - Collector by
his draft speaking order dated 13.11.2011 has conclusively
determined that the said lands are not forest lands. This
determination is pursuant to the statutory inquiry as contemplated
under the provisions of Section 6 of the State Act. This determination
has been done on 13.01.2011. The State Government has not filed
any Appeal challenging the decision of the Collector within the
prescribed period of sixty days before the Tribunal and as such the
decision of the Collector in respect of the said lands has become final.
The said lands therefore cannot be deemed to be forest land /
reserved forest or any portion thereof as forest for the purpose of
obtaining prior approval of the Central Government for its dereservation
and use for non-forest purpose under the Central Act.
9. In the above backdrop it is stated that for the provisions of
Section 2 of the Central Act to come into force, a jurisdictional fact
that the land in question is a 'forest' needs to exist. If the land in
question is 'not a forest', then the provisions of Section 2 of the Central
Act cannot be invoked or made applicable. Section 2 of the Central
Act come into play only if the subject land is a forest and not
otherwise. In the present case, the decision of the Collector under the
22 of 33
wp.95.20.doc
provisions of Section 6 of the State Act adjudicating that the said lands
are 'not private forest' having become final, the State Government
cannot invoke the provisions of Section 2 of the Central Act for seeking
de-reservation of the said lands.
10. We have perused the detailed speaking order dated
13.01.2011 passed by the Respondent No.2 - Collector which is
annexed as Exhibit R-2 to the Affidavit-in-Reply dated 16.04.2021 of
the Respondent No. 2 (pages 353 to 383 of the Writ Petition). We
may highlight and reproduce some of the relevant portions of the
order, which read thus:-
"...Considering the provisions u/s, 4 of the Act of 1975, it will
be seen that no steps have been taken by forest authorities
for acquisitions of these suit lands..."(@Page 370)
"...The Forest authorities have submitted a copy of 'Golden
Register' maintained by the Department on which generally
considerable reliance has been placed. It is about the notices
under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act 1927 issued
from time to time. Nowhere it shows the suit lands in the said
register and respondent-forest have also not agitated on this
point about the inclusion of the suit lands in the said 'Golden
Register' and also it does not contain any Gat number of
village Bhushi..." (@ Page 371)
"...no notices u/s 35 of the Act of 1927 and under section
21(1) under the Act of 1975 were issued in the present case
by Forest department till today..." (@Page 372)
"...On perusal of 7/12 extracts from 2002.2003 to 2004.05 of
the suit lands it it seen that most of the lands are 'pad' and
Kharip lands, hold by different holders and does not support
the claim of Forest Department..." (@ Page 373)
"... Further perusal of the papers, it will be seen that
Development Plan was sanctioned by the Urban Development
Department in the area wherein the said lands are shown as
agricultural lands and not forest lands in possession of the
23 of 33
wp.95.20.doc
Forest Department. When draft development plan was
published, objections were called and after the period was
over, the draft plan was made final during the period from
the year 1978 to 2006 papers available before this court
shows that it was not challenged by the Forest Department at
any point of time..." (@ Page 375)
"...The Forest authorities themselves have not taken any basic
steps to establish their authority on the lands claimed to have
been under the Private Forests Acquisition Act Forest
authorities are claiming the properties on the strength of
mere 'words' and are accepting the factual situation contrary
to their claims discussed in earlier paragraphs..." (@ Page
376)
"... From a perusal of the definitions of the above sections it is
clear that the question of approval of the Central Government
arises only when the State Government makes a request for
such approval in respect of cases falling under the
enumerated categories of section 2. In the present case
nature of suit lands is being declared as non-forest on merits
and the available documents show that these are not a
private forest lands and therefore as contemplated u/s 2 of
the Act of 1980, this court is required to seek permission
from the Central Government Authority through State
Government..." (@ Page 377/378) (Emphasis supplied).
"...From the foregoing discussion, it is clear that the suit lands
prior to the appointed day and subsequent to the same have
not been vested with the Forest Department and the
mutation entry No.720 of village Bhushi Tal. Mawal taken in
respect of the suit lands needs to be quahsed..." (@ Page
380) (Emphasis supplied).
".. Considering the above legal and factual position, and the
papers available before this Court and the points discussed in
the judgment as above, I pass the following Order.
ORDER
The suit lands are declared as 'not private forest' under
section 6 of the Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act,
1975. The application of the applicant in this behalf is
allowed and the M.E. No.720 of Village Bhushi Tal. Mawal is
quashed in respect of the suit lands. The decision will be
final subject to approval from Central Government u/s 2 as
the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and thereafter it will
come into force. Thereafter inform both the parties
accordingly." (@ Page 380/381)."
10.1. The scheme of Section 6 of the State Act requires the
Collector to decide any question as to whether or not any forest is a
private forest or whether or not any private forest or portion thereof
has vested in the State Government. In the present case, a detailed
speaking order of the Collector has conclusively determined and
declared the said lands as 'not private forest' under the provisions of
Section 6 of the State Act. The decision is on the basis of the findings
alluded to and reproduced hereinabove with reference to the
provisions of the Act of 1927, the State Act and the Central Act. The
categorical findings given by the Collector in arriving at the
conclusion that the said lands are 'not private forest' with reference to
the provisions of the Act of 1927 and the State Act do not leave any
doubt in our mind that the said lands are not forest.
11. From the perusal of the above order, we find that there is a
categorical finding arrived at by the Respondent No.2 - Collector
recording that the said lands are 'not private forest' and hence are also
not a 'forest' under the provisions of the State Act. The reasoned order
however records that the declaration arrived at by the Respondent
No.2 - Collector shall be subject to the permission from the Central
Government under Section 2 of the Central Act.
12. In the present case, admittedly there is no declaration /
notice / notification in respect of the said lands being classified and
declared as 'private forest'. Further under the provisions of Section 2
read with Section 3 of the State Act, the said lands have to be a 'forest' before it could be classified as a 'private forest' and thereafter declared to be a 'reserved forest'. According to the Petitioners the provisions of Section 3(2) of the State Act expressly excludes land under cultivation i.e. 'agricultural land' even if it is comprised in a 'private forest'. The said lands stand outside the purview of the provisions of Section 2 of the Central Act as they are not a forest and if that be so there can be no question of de-reservation or denotification or seeking approval for the use of forest land for non-forest purpose.
13. The entire controversy in the present case has arisen due to
the unilateral Mutation entry No.720 recorded in the Mutation
Register pertaining to the said lands which classified the said lands as
'forest lands'; this mutation entry was solely based on the
communication dated 11.11.2005 addressed by the Respondent No.3 -
Deputy Conservation of Forest to the Respondent No.2 - Collector
without any substantive basis / evidence as observed by us.
13.1. We have noted that the said Mutation entry was effected
with reference to the State Act. The Petitioners therefore filed the
statutory appeal seeking adjudication under the provisions of Section 6 of the State Act. However, once the Respondent No.2 - Collector has declared the said lands as 'not private forest' under Section 6 of the State Act, the applicability of the Central Act to the said lands does not arise. As seen, the said lands have been certified as 'agricultural lands' in the various revenue records and as such under Section 3(2) of the State Act, on this count also they cannot be deemed to be 'forest land' much less private forest land. Save and except the unilateral Mutation entry, admittedly there is no other evidence or material
placed on record by the Respondents to classify, certify or notify the
said lands as 'forest land'. The reasoned decision/order passed by the
Respondent No.2 - Collector declaring the said lands as 'not private
forest' under the State Act therefore decides the status of the said
lands.
14. Under Section 2 of the Central Act the approval of the
Central Government is necessary only if the land is a forest and if the
State Government passes an order directing that any reserved forest
shall cease to be reserved; or any forest land is used for non-forest
purpose; or any forest land is assigned to a private person or a nongovernment
organization; or any forest land may be cleared of trees or
re-afforestation. Thus it is clear that for the provisions of Section 2 of
the Central Act to apply, it it necessary in the first place that the said
lands have to be 'forest land'. However if the said lands are not forest
land then the provisions of Section 2 of the Act of 1980 are
inapplicable and thus the permission sought by the Respondent No.2 -
Collector from the Central Government with respect to its decision of
declaration of the said lands as 'not private forest' is wholly illegal.
15. The Respondents' submission that the Collector has merely
determined the said lands as 'not private forest' but the said lands still
continue to be 'forest' is also unacceptable due to the following
reasons:
i. the State Act, defines forest in Section 2(c-i) and private
forest in section 2(f). Thus the same Act deals with both
definitions and if a dispute as to the status is raised, then
under Section 6 it confers jurisdiction on the Collector to
adjudicate the same alongwith a statutory appellate remedy
to the Tribunal, in the present case the order of the Collector
has become absolute;
ii. the Mutation entry No. 720 itself was made with reference
to the State Act. The matter therefore fell within the ambit
of the State Act. Hence, the Petitioners necessarily had to
file the Application under Section 6 of the State Act and the
issue fell squarely within the Collector's jurisdiction. This has
been admitted by the Respondent No.2 in its Affidavit (at
Para 4; page Nos.347 and 348). Before the Respondent
No.2 - Collector, the State did not question or dispute the
Collector's jurisdiction to decide all the issues raised by the
Petitioner, the foremost being that the said lands were not
forest land at all;
iii. the Petitioners' case before the Collector was that the said
lands were 'agricultural lands', - that they were never 'forest'
in the first place and thus, could never be a 'private forest';
the documentary evidence on record states and establishes
that the said lands are 'agricultural lands' and 'not forest' and
the said documents were produced before the Collector to
establish the same; these documents and their contents are
not disputed;
iv. admittedly, there were no proceedings pending under the
Act of 1927 qua the said lands on the appointed date, i.e.
30.08.1975, the date of coming into force of the State Act;
v. the Collector, on merits, accepted the Petitioner's case that
the said lands are not 'forest' and thus came to the
unequivocal conclusion that the said lands are 'not private
forest'. This was an inherent part of the enquiry and on the
basis of unimpeachable material on record, the Collector
accepted the fundamental/basic fact and position that the
said lands are 'not private forest' and hence necessarily are
not 'forest';
vi. The State's argument, if accepted, would lead to an absurd
and anomalous situation, and will defeat the scheme of the
State Act. A 'forest' belonging to a private person is a
'private forest', and thus, when a private party objects to his
land being declared a 'private forest', he is also objecting to it
being declared a 'forest'. It cannot be that even when a party
has succeeded under Section 6 of the State Act, his private
land will continue to be a 'forest'. In any event, in this case,
the Collector, acting within his jurisdiction, has on merits
held that the said lands are 'not private forest'. This finding
is final and binds the State.
16. Further the stand adopted by the State Government is in
clear conflict with the stand taken by the Central Government in the
present case due to the following reasons:
i. The Central Government has categorically stated that it has
not yet (for 11 long years) received any application from the
State Government under Section 2 of the Central Act (para 4
of its Affidavit on page 330 and para 2 of page 1 of its
Written Submissions). This is contrary to the State's case
that it has forwarded the application to the Central
Government. However subsequently, during the hearing in
Court, the State has admitted the position that it has not sent
any application to the Central Government at all;
ii. Rule 6 of the Forest (Conservation) Rules, 2003 prescribes
the form for making an application under Section 2 of the
Forest (Conservation) Rules. This Application has to be
made by the State as the User Agency. Rule 6 and Form 'A'
apply only when forest land is to be used for non-forest
purposes, when a project is to be set up on the forest land,
and particulars of the proposed project are to be set out. No
such thing exists / applies in the present case. The State is
fully aware of this fact and it is for that reason that no
application, indeed, has been forwarded by the State
Government in the last 11 years.
17. It is an admitted position that the State Government has
never submitted the draft order passed by the Respondent No. 2 -
Collector for seeking permission in the last 11 years; rule 6 and Form
'A' of Forest (Conservation) Act apply only in a case where an existing
forest is to be de-reserved or is been put to a non-forest use, which is
not applicable to the said lands. The Petitioners have been wrongly
denied the benefit of the said lands for the last decade on a completely false and erroneous premise that the Petitioners' case was pending approval / permission from the Central Government under the
provisions of Section 2 of the Central Act. The Central Government
represented by Advocate Mr. Mandar Limaye has in its Affidavit-in-
Reply dated 24.08.2020 (paragraph 6, page 331) confirmed that the
Central Government has no role to play in the matter and the same
stand is reiterated in their written submissions dated 28.07.2021.
18. In view of the above discussion and findings, it is held that
the provisions of Section 2 of the Central Act do not apply to the said
lands, hence the contention of the State Government that the approval / permission of the Central Government is required for confirming the declaration arrived at by the Collector is wholly erroneous.
19. For the above reasons, we hold that the order dated
13.01.2011 passed by Respondent No. 2 - Collector to the extent that
it states that the decision that the said lands are not 'private forest
land' will be subject to the approval from the Central Government
under Section 2 of the Central Act and only thereafter will come into
force, is bad in law and is quashed and set aside. The rest of the order
passed by the Respondent No. 2 - Collector is upheld and maintained.
20. In view of the above the Writ Petition stands allowed in
terms of prayer clauses (a) and (c). However, there shall be no order
as to costs.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] [ S. J. KATHAWALLA, J.]
21. After pronouncing the Judgment, at this stage Mr. Kulkarni,
learned Advocate appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 to 4 has
made an application for stay of the judgment. The Application is
rejected.
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] [ S. J. KATHAWALLA, J.]
No comments:
Post a Comment