Bombay HC Upholds Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal’s Decision Declaring Disputed Land a Private Forest

Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS)- Law I Litigation I Arbitration

Date: 13.10.2026

Bombay HC Upholds Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal’s Decision Declaring Disputed Land a Private Forest

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a long-running writ petition concerning Survey No. 201 (Part) at Village Ambivali, Taluka Shahapur, District Thane. The Court held that the land, measuring 6 hectares and 72 ares, was validly retained by the State as private forest land under the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975.

Justice M.M. Sathaye delivered the judgment on 12 October 2026 in Abdul Kadir Ibrahim Memon (through legal representatives) v. State of Maharashtra and others. The Court upheld the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal’s 2001 decision, which had reversed an earlier order treating the land as agricultural and releasing it from acquisition.

The dispute: agricultural land or private forest?

The petitioners argued that the property was agricultural land under cultivation and could not be treated as a private forest. They relied on the absence of a final notification under Section 35(1) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, even though a notice under Section 35(3) had been served in 1960.

In 1998, the Deputy Collector for Private Forests had accepted this position and declared the land agricultural, deleting it from acquisition. The State challenged that finding before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, which restored the State’s claim in 2001. The landowners then approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

Why the Court ruled for the State

The decisive issue was not merely whether a final Section 35(1) notification had been issued. The Court focused on whether the Section 35(3) notice remained a valid, operative “pipeline notice” when the 1975 acquisition law came into force.

The Court found that:

• The Section 35(3) notice dated 15 July 1960 was served on the owner on 3 August 1960.
• During the statutory inquiry under Section 22A of the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, the relevant survey land was recorded as retained by the State.
• Government records and a possession receipt showed that the State took possession of the land in September 1975.
• While some other properties were restored to the owner, Survey No. 201 (Part) was not among the restored lands.

On these facts, the Court held that the notice had not become stale. It had been served, acted upon, and followed by the State taking possession while the matter was still legally live.

Meaning of “pipeline notice” in the ruling

The petitioners relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, which held that old notices under Section 35(3) cannot be revived indefinitely if they had lost their relevance or “shelf life.”

However, the High Court distinguished that precedent. It found that the Ambivali notice was not an abandoned or stale notice because the State had completed the relevant inquiry, retained the land, and taken possession in 1975. Therefore, it qualified as a live “pipeline notice” preserved by the 1975 Act.

The Court also rejected reliance on another earlier case involving restored land, noting that the facts were the opposite here: the disputed parcel had been retained by the State, not restored to the landowner.

Possession and later claims

The Court noted that the dispute resurfaced in 1998 when the petitioner’s wife sought permission to fell trees. The Deputy Conservator’s office informed her that the forest-law notice applied and that permission could not be granted.

The Court held that, after possession had been taken by the State in 1975, the petitioners could not reopen the ownership and possession issue more than two decades later. It also found that the Deputy Collector’s 1998 conclusion lacked adequate support because it did not properly account for the records of retention and possession.

Outcome

The writ petition was dismissed. The Court concluded that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal’s view was a plausible and evidence-based one, with no legal perversity warranting interference.

The Court maintained the existing restraint against the petitioners but lifted the corresponding restraint on the State. It stayed the operation of its order for four weeks because of the case’s long pendency. No order as to costs was made.

Key legal takeaway

This decision shows that, in private-forest acquisition disputes, the absence of a final notification under Section 35(1) of the Indian Forest Act may not by itself defeat the State’s claim.

Where a Section 35(3) notice was properly served, acted upon through the statutory process, and followed by the State taking possession, the notice can remain legally effective as a live pipeline notice under the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975.

Listen to this on our #YouTube Channel

Aadrikaa Legal Services is a trusted legal and regulatory support partner providing end-to-end legal solutions to law firms, corporate organizations, and businesses across India. We specialize in paralegal services, litigation support, tax and regulatory matters, delivering reliable, efficient, and result-oriented legal assistance.

Our services include comprehensive paralegal support, drafting and documentation, legal research, case management, litigation handling, and representation support across various judicial and quasi-judicial forums. We also assist in direct and indirect tax matters, customs, GST, corporate regulatory compliance, and legal advisory.

Source: Bombay High Court

Disclaimer

Handy Download:

Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com

Tel: +91-11-4999 2707

www.aadrikaalaw.com