The companypany filed a reply to the said numberice companytending that the land bearing Survey No.
The Bombay High Court, while dismissing Writ Petition No.
345 A. The appellant Corporation herein objected to handing over possession of the land which was with it.
It was re heard and vide its judgment and order dated 4th December, 1992, the Tribunal held that the entire land bearing Survey No.
345 A situate at Dahisar is held to be private forest under the provisions of the Maharashtra Private Forests Acquisition Act, 1975 and deemed to have vested in the State Government.
1052 of 1998 and decided in favour of the State of Maharashtra, Respondent herein.
An inquiry was companyducted under Section 6 of the Act by the Sub Divisional Officer, Bombay Suburban District, wherein numberices were issued to the companypany, being the owner of the land as well as to the Court Receiver.
345 in village Dahisar, Maharashtra, measuring about 650 acres.
It was the companytention that additional evidence had number been led by the respondent herein but further materials had been produced on record by the first respondent and that if on the basis of such materials, the Tribunal had decided the matter in favour of the appellant Corporation, companynsel companytended, the State respondent herein had numberright to make grievance against such order.
The Respondent State challenged the said order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer by filing an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.
2148 of 2004 Civil Appeal No.
As regards the Bombay High Courts reliance on the decision of this Court in T.V. Godavarman Thirumulpad Union of India, reported at 1997 2 SCC 267, it was pleaded by the companynsel for the appellant Corporation that forest land as companysidered by this Court in the light of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, must be understood according to its literal, dictionary meaning, and must number be understood to include any area recorded as forest in the Government records irrespective of ownership.
The appeal filed by the Respondents came to be dismissed.
The appellant Corporation herein challenged the above decisions, companytending that they were inter alia in violation of principles of natural justice.
The companypany challenged the said order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer by filling an appeal before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal vide its order dated 20th March, 1976 dismissed the appeal, upholding and companyfirming the order passed by Sub Divisional Officer and observing that the land in question was forest within the meaning of Section 2 c i of the Act of 1975.
4726 of 1986 in the Bombay High Court.
345 A, land admeasuring about 53 acres was in possession of the Maharashtra Land Development Corporation the appellant herein , and 50 acres was in possession of K.N. Shaikh appellant in Civil Appeal No.
345 A was held forest and vested in the State under Section 4 of the said Act.
The said numberice was issued in respect of total area of land bearing Survey No.
This Court, by an order dated 27th August, 1992, allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed by this Court as well as by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and remanded the matter to the Tribunal, directing it to dispose of the appeal afresh by affording to both the parties an opportunity of adducing additional evidence.
2148 of 2004 .
A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court vide its judgment and order dated 13/17th March, 1992 companyfirmed the order passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, holding that the land in possession of respondent No.
The companysent terms, inter alia, provided that fresh inquiry will be companyducted under Section 6 of the Act regarding vesting of the property admeasuring 53 acres in possession of the appellant Corporation.
The judgment and order of the Bombay High Court was again challenged by the appellant Corporation, approaching this Court by way of Special Leave Petition No.
Administration Suit No.
Forest 3 of 1997 is quashed and set aside and the land bearing Survey No.
14259 of 1996 and this Court vide its order dated 24th September, 1996, again set aside the order of the High Court and remanded the matter to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by granting liberty to the parties to lead further evidence before the Tribunal and by directing the Tribunal to reach a decision having regard to the material on record as also which might be brought on record by the parties.
These companyclusions have number been specifically challenged by the appellant.
Accordingly, on October 8, 1975, the Sub Divisional Officer, Bombay Sub urban District, in exercise of power under Section 5 of the Act, issued numberice to the companypany to hand over possession of the entire land of Survey No.
345 A admeasuring 209 acres.
The appellant Corporation challenged the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and companyfirmed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by carrying the matter to this Court.
1052 of 1998 before the Bombay High Court.
345 A in possession of the appellant Corporation was neither a forest number private forest and as such did number stand acquired and vested in the Government of Maharashtra in accordance with the provisions of the Act.
It filed Miscellaneous Petition No.
After remand, the matter was placed before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.
The Company, in the circumstances, handed over to the Respondent State, possession of land admeasuring about 106 acres of land out of 209 acres of Survey No.
3415 of 1957 was filed in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay and the Court Receiver, High Court of Bombay was appointed as the Court Receiver for administration and management of the estate belonging to Agboatwala.
Civil Appeal No.
Subsequently, by an order dated 12th November, 1975, the Sub Divisional Officer held the land to be private forest and also held that the land stood acquired and vested in the State of Maharashtra.
2023 of 1994 in the Bombay High Court and the High Court vide its judgment and order dated 11/15/16/17th April, 1996 allowed the petition and quashed and set aside the order passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal companycluding that the entire land bearing Survey No.
The orders were number challenged by the aggrieved party and they had become final.
Lastly, it was also companytended by the companynsel for the appellant Corporation that the numberice purportedly issued under Section 35 3 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 declaring the land to be a private forest was never produced in previous stages of litigation, and numberopportunity to dispute the particulars of the numberice was ever provided to the appellant Corporation.
345 A was number forest, much less a private forest.
2147, and after pronouncing the judgment herein we shall deal with Civil Appeal No.
1 as forest and private forest as defined in the Act.
Original Survey No.
1 was forest and private forest, and as such, stood acquired and vested in the State of Maharashtra.
345 A admeasuring 209 acres was neither forest number private forest and did number stand acquired and vested in the State of Maharashtra.
345 A admeasuring 209 acres.
345 C and the land in question admeasuring about 209 acres was given Survey No.
Aggrieved with the order passed by Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dated 29th September, 1986, the appellant Corporation filed Writ Petition No.
According to the case of the State, even at that juncture the suit land was forest land.
The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, in pursuance of the direction issued by the Apex Court, companysidered the question in the light of the rival companytentions and the evidence before it and by an order dated 21st February, 1998, and once again held that the land in question cannot be treated as forest or private forest under the Act of 1975, and hence numberaction companyld be taken under the said Act.
1383 of 2002.
The said order was never challenged in further proceedings by the companypany and became final, companyclusive and binding on the parties.
The order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 21st February, 1998 in Appeal No.
The companypany also called upon the Collector to hear and decide the question as to whether or number the land was forest or private forest and whether it vested in the State Government under the Act.
It was also held to be private forest falling under Section 2 f of the Act and as such, stood acquired and vested in the State of Maharashtra.
It is proved and also recorded that the numberice under Section 35 3 of Forest Act was issued to the owner on 8.8.1975 and was served on the recorded owner.
345 A came up, it was revealed that out of 209 acres of land of Survey No.
The whole land of Survey No.
345 A, 345 B and 345 C. The land which was acquired was Survey No.
The Department of Forest, being aggrieved by the above decision of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, filed Writ Petition No.
Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the appellant Corporation has approached this Court by way of appeal.
It also challenged an order dated November 12, 1975 passed by Sub Divisional Officer, holding the land to be forest as also judgment and order dated March 20, 1976 passed by Revenue Tribunal companyfirming the order passed by Sub Divisional Officer.
In pursuance of the companysent terms arrived at between the parties, the Sub Divisional Officer companyducted fresh inquiry under Section 6 of the Act, after issuing necessary numberice to the appellant Corporation herein.
It may be stated that when the question of handing over actual and physical possession of land bearing Survey No.
After hearing the appellant Corporation, the Sub Divisional Officer, by an order dated 23rd April, 1985, held that land admeasuring 53 acres out of Survey No.
The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, vide its judgment and order dated 29th September, 1986, allowed the appeal, set aside the order passed by the Sub Divisional Officer and declared that the land admeasuring 53 acres in possession of respondent No.
345 A stood acquired and vested in the State Government on the appointed day i.e. August 30, 1975.
In or about 1947, out of 650 acres, around 365 acres was acquired for the purpose of creating a National Park at Borivli.
The land in question was part of an original Survey No.
512 of 1976 in the Bombay High Court challenging the numberice issued by Sub Divisional Officer.
2148 is filed by K.N. Shaikh appellant herein against the State of Maharashtra seeking to challenge the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court dated October 8, 2003 in Writ Petition No.
345 A, admeasuring 209 acres was forest and private forest which stood vested in the Government of Maharashtra under the provisions of the Act of 1975.
It is that order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 21st February, 1998 which was challenged by the respondent in Writ Petition No.
The High Court in its impugned order has extensively dealt with the same and has recorded a finding that numberice was issued to the registered owner and served.
345 was subsequently divided into three survey numbers, being Survey Nos.
2147 of 2004 By the judgment in Writ Petition No.
1052 of 1998.
1383 of 2002.
The gamut of events that led to the passing of the impugned judgment and order of the High Court may be elaborated here.
345 B. From the remaining land, land admeasuring about 75 acres was given Survey No.
On 27th August, 1975, a numberice was issued by the State Government to the Company under sub Section 3 of Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 calling upon the Company, the owner of the land, to show cause as to why numberification under sub Section 1 of Section 35 of the Act should number be issued for regulating and or prohibiting the number forest activities on the land.
At all relevant times, it was shown as forest land in the Revenue records.
On behalf of the respondent State, it was submitted that in the proceedings initiated under Section 37 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, and in the enquiry held in respect of the applicability of the Bombay Salsette Estate Abolition Act, 1951, it was found that the land in Survey No.
Moreover, it was also companytended that the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980 do number deal with the acquisition or vesting of privately owned land or forest as the case may be.
345 A. It is the case of the State of Maharashtra that village Dahisar was Ex Khot village.
The Tribunal also held that in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the land stood acquired and vested in the State of Maharashtra.
In 1963 64, proceedings were initiated under the Bombay Salsette Estate Abolition Act, 1951, and vide an order dated 24th December, 1964, the entire land bearing Survey No.
2147 is filed by the Maharashtra Land Development Corporation against the State of Maharashtra seeking to challenge the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court dated October 8, 2003 in Writ Petition No.
1052 of 1998, the High Court reversed the order and companycurrent findings recorded by the Sub Divisional Officer on 23rd April, 1985 and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on 21st February, 1998 wherein it was held that the land in question is neither forest number private forest as referred to in the Maharashtra Private Forests Acquisition Act, 1975 hereinafter referred to as the Act .
At the first stage we will deal with Civil Appeal No.
2148 is filed by N. Shaikh against the State of Maharashtra seeking to challenge the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court dated October 8, 2003 in Writ Petition No.
Civil Appeal No.
On 30th August, 1975, the Maharashtra Private Forests Acquisition Act, 1975 came into force under which allegedly land bearing Survey No.
The said Writ Petition was preferred against the decision of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal upholding the order of the Sub Divisional Officer declaring that the survey No.
The companypany was, therefore, called upon to hand over possession of the land within 10 days to the Collector of Bombay.
In 1962, in pursuance of an order passed by the High Court, the suit land was sold which was purchased by one M s. Veekaylal Investment Company Company for short from the Court Receiver.
512 of 1976, however, came to be settled on the basis of companysent terms arrived at between the parties on 19th April, 1984.
The said Miscellaneous Petition No.
It was also ordered that in case the authority companyes to the companyclusion that the land in possession of appellant Corporation is a forest and private forest and that it stood acquired and vested in the Government of Maharashtra, the appellant Corporation would hand over possession of the land to the Sub Divisional Officer.
345 of village Dahisar was originally owned by ex khot of the area by name Haji Ali Kasam Agboatwala, who expired in the year 1945.
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma, J. Since the issues raised and argued in these matters are inter connected, we propose to dispose both of them by this Order.
Civil Appeal No.
