Invalid service of notice on non-owners prior to statute repeal precludes automatic vesting of private forest land.

The dispute concerns land admeasuring approximately 193 acres in Survey No. 59/1, Manpada, Thane.

The State claimed the land vested in it as "private forest" under the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 ("1975 Act") based on a notice dated 29.08.1975 issued under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 ("1927 Act").

However, the notice was signed by a Forest Guard (Van-Rakshak) and addressed to "D. Dayabhai and Co." (a separate entity) rather than the actual owner, "D. Dahyabhai and Co. Pvt. Ltd."

Service was admittedly effected on 04.09.1975, after the 1927 Act provisions were repealed on 30.08.1975.

Procedurally, after decades of litigation and a remand from the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT), the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO) in 2004 held part of the land as forest and exempted other portions.

Both the State and the owner appealed to the MRT, which in 2017 declared the entire land as non-forest, holding the 1975 notice invalid.

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

The Court primarily applied Section 2(f)(iii) and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 regarding the definition and vesting of private forests.

It relied on the precedent in *Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra* (2014), which established that "issuance" of a notice under Section 35(3) of the 1927 Act must include "service" to allow the owner a right to object, and that only "pipeline" or "live" notices issued in close proximity to the appointed day (30.08.1975) are saved.

The Court further applied *Rohan Vijay Nahar v. State of Maharashtra* (2025), holding that mutation entries cannot perfect an acquisition that lacks statutory predicates and that strict compliance with Section 35 of the 1927 Act (notice, hearing, and notification) is mandatory for vesting.

Article 300A of the Constitution was applied to protect the right to property and ensure compensation for land acquired for public purposes.

The Court reasoned that for land to vest under Section 3 of the 1975 Act via Section 2(f)(iii), the Section 35(3) notice must be validly served on the true owner to satisfy natural justice.

The notice dated 29.08.1975 was fatally defective as it was issued by an unauthorized Forest Guard, addressed to a non-owner entity, and served after the relevant law was repealed.

Following *Godrej & Boyce*, the Court held that while service needn't precede the appointed day for a "pipeline notice," the absence of proof of dispatch before 30.08.1975 and the service on a wrong addressee rendered the process dead.

Regarding the second petition, the Court found that the TMC had already taken physical possession of 104 acres for public projects like roads and tunnels based on a sanctioned Development Plan that the Forest Department never challenged.

Consequently, withholding the DRC (compensation) while retaining the land violated the Company's constitutional rights under Article 300A, especially since the MRT’s 2017 finding that the land was "non-forest" remained stayed by no higher court.

It allowed the Company's petition (WP 10024/2023).

The Court held that strict statutory compliance is a prerequisite for vesting and that a defective notice served on a stranger cannot divest a citizen of their property.

The TMC was directed to issue/allot the TDR/DRC against Park Reservation No. 4 (404,721.02 sq. mtrs.) to the Petitioner within 21 working days of the judgment's uploading.