A live Section 35(3) notice acted upon through State possession survives the absence of a final notification.

The dispute concerned 6 hectares 72 ares of Survey No. 201 (Part), Village Ambivali.

A notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (IFA) was issued in 1960 and served on the predecessor of the Petitioners.

The State’s records indicated that the land was retained and possession taken in 1975 following an inquiry under Section 22A of the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 (MPFA).

In 1998, the Deputy Collector held that the land was agricultural and outside the MPFA; the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal allowed the State’s appeal and set aside that decision.

The Petitioners challenged the Tribunal’s order, arguing, among other things, that no final notification under Section 35(1) IFA had been issued.

1. Whether a notice under Section 35(3) IFA, served in 1960 without a demonstrated final notification under Section 35(1), could be treated as a live “pipeline notice” under the MPFA in the circumstances of this case

2. Whether the Tribunal was justified in finding that the land had been retained by the State and was not restored to the Petitioners, notwithstanding the Deputy Collector’s 1998 determination that it was agricultural land

Section 35(3) IFA provides for notice to an owner before action under that provision; Section 35(1) concerns the relevant final notification.

Under Section 2(f)(iii) MPFA, as explained in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, notices under Section 35(3) that remained live and were issued in reasonably close proximity to the MPFA’s commencement could be acted upon, whereas stale notices that had passed their “shelf life” could not

The Court also considered the MPFA provisions governing possession and inquiries, including Sections 5, 6 and 22A, and distinguished Satelite Developers Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Ramrati Ramdulari Shahu v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Bhiwandi on their facts

The Court found that the notice had been duly served and that the State had acted on it: the Section 22A inquiry records identified the land as retained, and the possession receipt recorded that the State took possession in 1975

It therefore treated the notice as a live pipeline notice acted upon before it could become stale, distinguishing the circumstances from those considered in Godrej & Boyce and Satelite Developers

The Deputy Collector’s 1998 conclusion was, in the Court’s view, contrary to the record of retention and possession; the Tribunal had considered that evidence and its decision disclosed no perversity warranting interference

It dismissed the writ petition, discharged the Rule, and made no order as to costs.

The interim order remained operative against the Petitioners and was vacated as against the State; operation of the judgment was stayed for four weeks.