Case Note & Summary
The writ petition arose from a dispute over industrial plot allotment in the Trans Thane Creek Industrial Area, Navi Mumbai. The petitioners, M/s Jabs International Pvt Ltd, had been allotted Plot A-350 in 1994 and were operating from structures constructed on that plot. In 2014, they applied for the adjacent Plot A-350/1 for expansion of manufacturing and processing capabilities. MIDC issued an allotment order on 23 July 2015 and collected lease premium of over Rs.5 crores, but did not hand over physical possession because the Forest Department objected that Survey No.134, on which the plot is located, was forest land. MIDC then allotted an alternate Plot A-829, but the Forest Department also claimed that plot as forest land. The petitioners filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking certiorari to quash the letter dated 28 September 2015 which recorded Plot A-350/1 as government forest, to quash the Sub-Divisional Officer's order dated 12 February 2025, and mandamus directing MIDC to execute lease deed and hand over possession of Plot A-350/1. The background facts showed that in 1965, the State Government issued a notification under Section 1(3) of the Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 applying Chapter VI to the lands, effective 15 October 1965. Subsequent notifications under Section 32(1) of the MID Act in 1966 and 1971 notified that the lands, including Survey No.134, vested in the State Government free from all encumbrances. Possession was handed over to MIDC in 1972, and the TTC Industrial Area was developed in phases. Plot A-350 was carved out and allotted to the petitioners in 1994. The Forest Department contended that Survey No.134 was private forest because a notice dated 6 March 1957 was issued to the original owners under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and therefore the land fell under Section 2(f)(iii) of the Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975. They argued that the land could not automatically change from forest to non-forest just because it was acquired for MIDC. MIDC, however, had communicated on 11 January 2016 and 20 September 2017 that Survey No.134 had already been acquired and vested in the State, and requested deletion as forest land under the Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act. The High Court found the Forest Department's argument without merit. The court noted that the Forest Department failed to show that the notice under Section 35(3) was ever served on the original owners. Relying on Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited v. State of Maharashtra [(2014) 3 SCC 430], particularly paragraphs 54 to 58 and 72 to 74, the court emphasized that mere issuance of notice does not make land a private forest; service is mandatory. The Supreme Court had interpreted 'issued' in Section 2(f)(iii) to include service, because the notice is intended to give the owner opportunity to object, and penal consequences under Section 35(7) attach to non-compliance. Since the Forest Department could not establish service, Survey No.134 could not be treated as private forest. Further, the court observed that the land had already vested in the State free from encumbrances under the MID Act and was developed as an industrial area, making the Forest Department's subsequent claim untenable. The reasoning strongly indicated that the petitioners were entitled to the relief sought, though the final operative order was not included in the provided excerpt.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 Constitution of India, 1950 - Scope of certiorari and mandamus against arbitrary action - Petitioners invoked extraordinary jurisdiction challenging Forest Department's objection that allotted industrial plot A-350/1 was forest land and MIDC's failure to hand over possession despite collecting lease premium - Court heard the matter finally and found that once land was acquired under Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 and vested in State free from encumbrances, Forest Department could not obstruct allotment by claiming private forest without statutory basis - Held that writ jurisdiction is appropriate to enforce MIDC's lease and possession obligation (Paras 2-4, 9-10). B) Forest Law - Private Forest Acquisition - Mandatory service of notice under Section 35(3) Indian Forest Act, 1927 - Mere issuance of notice without service does not make land a private forest under Section 2(f)(iii) Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975 - Court relied on Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [(2014) 3 SCC 430] holding that service is inherent in the provision and mandatory due to penal consequences under Section 35(7) - Held that Forest Department failed to show service of notice on original owners, hence Survey No.134 could not be treated as private forest (Paras 10-11). C) Maharashtra Industrial Development Act - Vesting of Acquired Land Free from Encumbrances - Sections 1(3) and 32(1) Maharashtra Industrial Development Act, 1961 - Land notified and acquired for industrial purposes vested in State Government free from all encumbrances and was handed over to MIDC for development of TTC Industrial Area - Court held that after such vesting and development, Forest Department cannot subsequently claim land as forest merely based on a prior unserved notice - Held that MIDC should proceed with lease execution and possession of allotted plot (Paras 5, 9-10). D) Specific Relief - MIDC Allotment and Lease Obligation - Duty to execute lease deed after collecting premium - MIDC allotted Plot A-350/1 and collected over Rs.5 crores lease premium but withheld possession due to Forest Department objection - Court found that objection based on unserved notice and prior acquisition cannot defeat petitioner's right to possession and lease execution - Held that Forest Department's claim was meritless and MIDC's duty to execute lease subsisted (Paras 4, 6, 8-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the letter dated 28 September 2015 recording Plot A-350/1 as government forest should be quashed; whether the Sub-Divisional Officer order dated 12 February 2025 is liable to be set aside; whether MIDC is obliged to execute and register lease deed and hand over possession of Plot A-350/1; whether Survey No.134 is private forest under Section 2(f)(iii) of the Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975 due to notice under Section 35(3) of Indian Forest Act, 1927 without proof of service
Law Points
- Service of notice under Section 35(3) of Indian Forest Act
- 1927 is mandatory to constitute private forest under Section 2(f)(iii) of Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act
- 1975
- mere issuance without service is insufficient
- land acquired under Maharashtra Industrial Development Act
- 1961 vests in State free from all encumbrances
- Forest Department cannot claim acquired industrial land as private forest
- MIDC duty to execute lease deed and handover possession after accepting lease premium
