Automatic Vesting Under Private Forest Act Requires Valid Service of Notice on Actual Landowner Before Repeal.

The State sought to acquire approximately 193 acres of land in Survey No. 59/A/1, Manpada, Thane, under the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 (“MPFA”).

The State issued a notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 (“IFA”) dated August 29, 1975, which was served on September 4, 1975.

The notice was addressed to "D. Dayabhai and Co." instead of the actual owner, "D. Dayabhai and Co. Pvt. Ltd.", and was signed by a Forest Guard rather than an authorized officer.

The land remained in the owner's possession, and parts were historically used for quarries, horticulture, and industries.

In 1982, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (“MRT”) remanded the matter for inquiry under Section 6 of the MPFA, but the State failed to act for 17 years until 1999.

On June 30, 2017, the MRT held that the land was not a "private forest" as the notice was served after the repeal of Section 35 of the IFA and on the wrong entity.

Meanwhile, the Thane Municipal Corporation (“TMC”) acquired 104 acres of the land for public reservations but withheld Transferable Development Rights (“TDR”) due to the Forest Department's objections.

Whether the subject land qualifies as "private forest" under Section 2(f)(iii) of the MPFA based on a notice issued under Section 35(3) of the IFA but served after the appointed day.

Whether the non-service of notice on the actual owner and issuance by an incompetent authority vitiates the vesting of the land in the State.

Whether the land owner is entitled to the issuance of TDR/DRC from the TMC despite pending claims by the Forest Department.

The court applied Section 2(f)(iii) and Section 3 of the MPFA regarding the acquisition and vesting of private forests.

It relied primarily on the Supreme Court precedents in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2014) and Rohan Vijay Nahar v. State of Maharashtra (2025).

These cases established that "issuance" of notice under Section 35(3) of the IFA cannot be divorced from "service" upon the true owner.

A notice must be a "pipeline" or "live" notice issued in reasonably close proximity to the appointed day (August 30, 1975) to effectuate vesting under Section 3(1) of the MPFA.

The court also applied Article 300A of the Constitution, affirming that no person shall be deprived of property save by authority of law.

The Court found that the statutory chain required for vesting was broken.

It observed that the notice was invalid because it was signed by a Forest Guard lacking jurisdiction and addressed to a non-owner entity.

Applying Godrej & Boyce, the Court clarified that while service need not strictly occur before the appointed day, it must be on the actual owner to trigger the right to object.

Since the notice reached the owner's affiliate after Section 35 of the IFA was repealed and was never served on the Petitioner Company in the manner prescribed by the CPC, the process never became "live".

The Court noted the State's 17-year delay in the remanded inquiry and the lack of proof of physical possession as evidence of abandonment.

Regarding the TMC, the Court reasoned that since the Forest Department never challenged the Development Plan or the 2019 registered Transfer Deeds, the acquisition by TMC was final.

Therefore, withholding TDR/DRC (statutory compensation) violated the owner's rights under Article 300A.

The Court allowed the owner's petition (WP 10024/2023), holding that the TMC cannot withhold compensation due to an internal deadlock with the Forest Department.

The TMC was directed to issue the TDR/DRC for the 404,721.02 sq. mtrs. of acquired park reservation to the Petitioner within 21 working days.