Forest vesting requires due service of notice and completed statutory steps; revenue mutations cannot cure missing prerequisites.
For vesting of private forests on the footing of a forest notice, due service of the Section 35(3) notice and a live statutory process culminating in lawful final action are mandatory. Mere issuance of an unserved notice is insufficient, and a dormant notice cannot later be relied on to create vesting. In the absence of proof of service, a final notification, possession-taking steps, and contemporaneous statutory action, revenue mutations and later declarations treating the lands as private forests could not sustain the acquisition, because mutation entries are only ministerial and cannot replace the statutory preconditions for deprivation of property.
Issues: (i) Whether a notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 must be duly served and pursued to a final notification to sustain vesting under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Private Forests Acquisition Act, 1975 on the basis of Section 2(f)(iii); (ii) Whether, in the absence of proof of service, a final notification, and contemporaneous statutory steps, revenue mutations and declarations treating the lands as private forests could be sustained.
Issue (i): Whether a notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 must be duly served and pursued to a final notification to sustain vesting under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Private Forests Acquisition Act, 1975 on the basis of Section 2(f)(iii).
Analysis: The statutory scheme treats issuance and service of the Section 35(3) notice as integral to the process, because service alone enables objections, hearing, and consideration before any final action under Section 35(1). A bare or unserved notice cannot by itself trigger vesting under Section 2(f)(iii). The expression "issued" in that provision comprehends due service, and the notice must be part of a live process capable of culminating in a lawful notification. A notice that remains dormant for decades lapses into desuetude and cannot be revived to create vesting.
Conclusion: The requirement of a duly served and live Section 35(3) notice was mandatory, and mere issuance without service was insufficient.
Issue (ii): Whether, in the absence of proof of service, a final notification, and contemporaneous statutory steps, revenue mutations and declarations treating the lands as private forests could be sustained.
Analysis: The record disclosed no proof of service of any Section 35(3) notice on the then owners, no final notification under Section 35(1), no taking of possession under Section 5 of the Maharashtra Private Forests Acquisition Act, 1975, and no contemporaneous action under Sections 4, 6, or 7. Mutation entries are ministerial and cannot create title or perfect an otherwise unproven acquisition. Post-hoc material and later revenue annotations could not cure the absence of mandatory preconditions, and strict compliance was required before deprivation of property under Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The High Court could not sustain vesting on grounds not forming the original basis of action.
Conclusion: The mutations and declarations treating the lands as private forests could not be sustained.
Final Conclusion: The impugned judgment was set aside, the writ petitions were allowed, and the lands were held not to have validly vested in the State on the basis asserted. The State was left at liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law.
Ratio Decidendi: For vesting under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Private Forests Acquisition Act, 1975 on the footing of Section 2(f)(iii), a notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 must be duly served and form part of a live statutory process culminating in lawful action; revenue mutations are only ministerial and cannot substitute for the mandatory statutory prerequisites.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
