Invalid Section 35(3) notice issued to wrong entity and lacking service on owner precludes statutory forest vesting.

The dispute concerns ~193 acres of land in Gut No. 59A/1, Manpada, Thane.

On 29.08.1975, the State purportedly issued a notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 ("IFA"), seeking to regulate it as a forest.

The Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 ("MPFA") came into force on 30.08.1975, repealing Section 35 of the IFA.

The notice was signed by a Forest Guard and addressed to "D. Dayabhai and Co." (a proprietary concern), whereas the land was owned by "D. Dayabhai and Co. Pvt. Ltd."

Service was effected on 04.09.1975, after the repeal.

Following decades of litigation, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal ("MRT") in 2017 declared the land non-forest because the notice was not validly served on the owner before the appointed day.

The State challenged this in WP 3205/2018.

Meanwhile, the land owner filed WP 10024/2023 to compel the Thane Municipal Corporation ("TMC") to issue Transferable Development Rights ("TDR/DRC") for 104 acres acquired for public reservations, which the TMC withheld citing the Forest Department's objections.

The court primarily applied Section 2(f)(iii) and Section 3 of the MPFA, which mandate the vesting of land in the State if a notice was "issued" under Section 35(3) of the IFA.

It relied on the Supreme Court precedents in *Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra* (2014) 3 SCC 430 and *Rohan Vijay Nahar v. State of Maharashtra* 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2366, which established that "issuance" of notice cannot be divorced from "service" on the owner, as service is inherent to the statutory scheme to allow for objections.

The court also applied Article 300A of the Constitution, affirming that a citizen cannot be deprived of property or its statutory compensation without authority of law.

The court found that for land to vest under Section 3 of the MPFA via Section 2(f)(iii), the Section 35(3) IFA notice must be validly issued and served on the actual owner.

In this case, the 1975 notice was defective as it was signed by an unauthorized Forest Guard and addressed to the wrong entity.

Following *Rohan Nahar*, the court observed that mutation entries do not create title where statutory predicates—like valid service and a final Section 35(1) notification—are missing.

Although the court disagreed with the MRT's view that service *must* occur before 30.08.1975, it held that the complete lack of service on the *actual* owner invalidated the vesting.

Regarding WP 10024/2023, the court noted that the TMC had already taken physical possession via registered transfer deeds and the State had failed to challenge these deeds or the Development Plan reservations within limitation.

Consequently, withholding compensation (DRC) violated the owner's constitutional rights under Article 300A.

The owner’s petition (WP 10024/2023) was allowed.

The TMC was directed to issue/allot the TDR/DRC for the acquired 404,721.02 sq. mtrs. of Park Reservation No. 4 to the land owner within 21 working days of the judgment.

The TMC's demand for a Forest Department NOC was deemed illegal.

Rule made absolute in favor of the land owner.