THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA v. D. DAYABHAI AND CO. PVT. LTD. AND ORS.
Private Forest Acquisition - Service of Notice is Mandatory for Vesting; Defective and Post-Repeal Service Vitiates Land Acquisition under MPFA.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:9747
Decision Date: 20-02-2026
List of Laws
Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975; Indian Forest Act, 1927; Constitution of India, Article 226 and Article 300A; Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966; Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations, 2020; Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948; Maharashtra General Clauses Act, 1904; Principle of Stare Decisis
- Facts: The State of Maharashtra sought to acquire approximately 193 acres of land in Thane as private forest under the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 (MPFA). The State claimed the land vested automatically on the "appointed day" (30.08.1975) because a notice under Section 35(3) of the Forest Act, 1927, was issued on 29.08.1975. However, the notice was signed by a Forest Guard rather than an authorized officer, addressed to "D. Dahyabhai and Co." instead of the actual owner "D. Dahyabhai and Co. Pvt. Ltd.", and was only served on 04.09.1975, after the repeal of the 1927 Act. Over the decades, the land was developed for non-forest use, including industries and residential zones, and roughly 104 acres were eventually transferred to the Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC) for public reservations. The land owner sought Transferable Development Rights (TDR) as compensation, which the Forest Department opposed.
- Procedural Posture: The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) ruled in favor of the land owner, holding the land was not a private forest. The State filed Writ Petition No. 3205 of 2018 challenging the MRT order. Simultaneously, the land owner filed Writ Petition No. 10024 of 2023 seeking a Mandamus to compel the TMC to issue TDR/DRC certificates for the acquired land. Both petitions were clubbed for hearing before the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court.
- Issue: Does the mere issuance of a notice under Section 35(3) of the Forest Act, 1927, without valid service upon the correct owner prior to the repeal of the Act, result in the automatic vesting of land as "private forest" under the MPFA?
- Holding: No. The Court held that the land did not vest in the State as private forest because the statutory prerequisites for acquisition were not met.
- Reasoning: Adhering to the Supreme Court precedents in "Godrej & Boyce" and "Rohan Vijay Nahar", the Court reasoned that "issuance" of a notice cannot be divorced from "service". For land to vest under Section 2(f)(iii) of the MPFA, there must be a "live" or "pipeline" notice. In this case, the notice was fatally defective as it was signed by an unauthorized official (a Forest Guard) and addressed to the wrong entity. Furthermore, since service occurred after the repeal of the Forest Act, 1927, there was no active legal process to be saved. The Court also noted the State's prolonged inaction and the practical impossibility of restoring land that had been integrated into urban infrastructure for decades. Consequently, the land owner was entitled to compensation in the form of TDR from the TMC.
🔒 For Members Only