Invalid service of Section 35(3) notice on owner precludes statutory vesting under Private Forests Act.

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

The State claimed the land was "private forest" under Section 2(f)(iii) of the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 ("MPFA"), having issued a notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 ("IFA") on 29.08.1975—one day before the IFA provisions were repealed

This notice was served on 04.09.1975, but addressed to "D. Dayabhai and Co." (a proprietary firm) rather than the actual owner, "D. Dahyabhai and Co. Pvt. Ltd."

Additionally, the notice was signed by a Forest Guard (Van Rakshak) rather than an authorized officer

In 2017, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal ("MRT") declared the land non-forest, holding that the notice was invalid due to non-service on the true owner before the "appointed day" (30.08.1975)

Meanwhile, the Thane Municipal Corporation ("TMC") acquired 104 acres of this land for public reservations (parks/roads) via registered deeds in 2019 but withheld Transferable Development Rights ("TDR") compensation due to the Forest Department's ongoing claims

1. Whether the subject land constitutes "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 on an incorrect entity.

2. Whether the non-service of the notice on the true owner vitiated the acquisition proceedings under the MPFA.

3. Whether the landowner is entitled to a Writ of Mandamus directing the TMC to issue Development Rights Certificates (DRC/TDR) for the acquired reserved land.

The Court applied Section 2(f)(iii) and Section 3 of the MPFA, which mandate that land vests in the State as "private forest" if a notice was "issued" under Section 35(3) of the IFA

It relied heavily 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), which established that "issuance" of notice cannot be divorced from "service" on the true owner

These cases clarify that only "pipeline" or "live" notices (issued in close proximity to 30.08.1975 and served) are saved, and failure to comply with statutory predicates—including service on the correct juristic entity and issuance by a competent authority—prevents automatic vesting

The Court also referenced Article 300A of the Constitution, affirming that a citizen cannot be deprived of property save by authority of law

The Court determined that the State failed to prove the land vested under Section 3 of the MPFA because the mandatory statutory chain was broken

First, the notice was issued by a Forest Guard, an unauthorized official

Second, the notice was addressed to a separate proprietary entity and never served on the actual private limited company that owned the land

Applying Godrej & Boyce, the Court noted that while service need not necessarily occur strictly before 30.08.1975 to be a "pipeline notice," it must be served on the correct owner to trigger the right to object

Since the true owner was never legally served, no "live process" existed on the appointed day

Furthermore, the land remained in the owner's possession for six decades and was put to non-forest uses like quarrying and horticulture

Regarding the second petition, the Court found the TMC's refusal to issue TDR was arbitrary, especially since the TMC had already taken physical possession and the Forest Department had never challenged the formal reservation or the 2019 Transfer Deeds

The Court allowed the landowner’s petition (WP 10024/2023), holding that withholding compensation for land already acquired and possessed by the Planning Authority violates the owner’s constitutional rights

The TMC was directed to issue/allot the TDR/DRC for the 404,721.02 sq. mtrs. acquired under the 2019 Deed within 21 working days

Rule was made absolute in these terms