1/6 43 WP.7263.2018.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7263 OF 2018 Ganesh Brijmohan Pokhriyal .. Petitioner Versus The Tahasildar, Ambernath & Ors. .. Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 2782 OF 2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 7263 OF 2018 Sombahadur Attarsingh Gurang & Ors. .. Applicants Versus Ganesh Brijmohan Pokhriyal & Ors. .. Respondents … Mr. Mayuresh Lagu a/w Mr. Sagar Patil, for the Petitioner. Mr. Karan S. Thorat, ‘B’ Panel Counsel, for the Respondent- State. ... CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE & ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ. DATED : 24th AUGUST, 2026 P.C:- 1. The Writ Petition raises a challenge to Mutation Entry No. 1180, by which, as per the order dated 28.05.2006, pursuant to invocation of Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and by the letter of the State Government, the name of the State Government is mutated in the 7/12 extract as the occupier. He seeks quashing of the said entry and prays for Rushikesh RUSHIKESH VISHNU PATIL Digitally signed by RUSHIKESH VISHNU PATIL Date: 2026.08.28 15:59:36 +0530 2/6 43 WP.7263.2018.odt inclusion of his name as the owner of the lands mentioned in the respective Power of Attorneys, after removing the same from the other rights column. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner. The learned counsel would specifically contend that the Petitioner is governed by the decision of this Court in the Writ Petitions which were decided on 05.05.2026, being Writ Petition No. 16682 of 2025 and Writ Petition No. 17453 of 2025, which involved the lands at Village- Mulgaon, Tal- Ambernath, Dist- Thane. We have perused the pleadings in the present Writ Petition and note that the Petitioner is the owner of landed property at Mauje Mulgaon, Tal- Ambernath, Dist- Thane, and the ground raised in the Writ Petition is very specific that, in the absence of any notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, having been served on the Petitioner and/or his predecessor-in-title, and in the absence of any acknowledgment of service of the notice under Section 35(3), the declaration that the land is a deemed ‘private forest’ under Section 2(f)(iii) of the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975, does not survive. 2. 2. This is the very precise point which was raised before us in the two Writ Petitions, wherein it was recorded that there was no proof of service of notice under Section 35(3) on the owner or the predecessor, in the wake of the law laid down in the case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited & Anr. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors1, as well as Rohan Vijay 1 (2014) 3 SCC 430 Rushikesh 3/6 43 WP.7263.2018.odt Nahar & Ors Vs. State of Maharshtra & Ors2. The declaration that it is a private forest was set aside. In our view, the observations made by us in the order dated 05.05.2026, to the following effect, govern the case of the Petitioner: “9. In the present case, the Petitioners as well as their predecessors had no knowledge about any such notice or notification being issued. The Respondent- Authorities do not posses any proof about service of notice on the then owner of the land. They are merely relying on the notification issued under Section 35(1) of the IFA, 1927, contents of which show that notice was issued to one Shashishekhar Bhaskar Madgundkar. It refers to a schedule dated 29.11.1958 attached to the notification. It does not disclose any survey number, it covers an area of 1400 acres. The information received by the petitioner dated 15.07.2024, includes a notice purportedly issued to the then owner under Section 35(3) of the IFA, 1927, which does not disclose the name of the owner, it only mentions that, the name of the owner is mentioned on the rear-side of the notice. There is no proof of service of the said notice, which is admitted by the Respondent Authorities. Thus, though the notification is issued under Section 35(1) of the IFA, 1927, service of notice under Section 35(3) is not proved. Section 35(3) itself mandates, that no notification under Section 35(1) can be issued unless notice is issued to the owner under Section 35(3). In view of the broader interpretation given to the word ‘issued’ by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it becomes imperative to prove service of notice to the owner. The extracts of the ‘Golden Register’, contains only the details of the lands declared as ‘Private Forest’, and the notices issued to erstwhile owners. There is no proof of service of these notices. This approach of the Respondent-Authorities is clearly contrary to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2366 Rushikesh 4/6 43 WP.7263.2018.odt Company Limited & Anr., (supra), which requires that, not only proof of notice issued under Section 35(3), but even proof of service of such notice. In absence of service of notice, it cannot be presupposed that there was an effective service of such notice. This view has been further reiterated in the decision of this Court in Sunil Shamrao Patil & Anr. (supra), which squarely applies to the present case, which reads thus: 17. Thus, the law settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Godrej & Boyce needs to be applied to the facts of the present case. Considering the statements made in the Affidavit in Reply of Shri. Nandkishor Nanasaheb on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, it is not even the case made out that notices under sub-Section 3 of Section 35 of the Forest Act, 1927 were served upon the erstwhile owners of the said land. It is not even a case made out that a Notification under sub-Section 1 of Section 35 was issued with respect to the said land. The only reliance placed in the affidavit is to some notice issued in the month of April 1958 to one Mahadu Bhavna Bhalekar as reflected in the 'Golden Register'. In the absence of any proof of service of notice, sub clause (iii) of clause (f) of Section 2 of the MPFA is not applicable to the said land. Hence, the said land cannot be termed to be a 'Private Forest' under the MPFA. Hence, the said land which is subject matter of the Petition cannot be said to vest in the State Government under sub-Section 1 of Section 3 of the MPFA. 18. With respect to entry made in the revenue record, the same is based on assumption that said land being a 'Private Forest' stands vested in the State Government. In view of the law laid down in the case of Godrej & Boyce and in view of the statements Rushikesh 5/6 43 WP.7263.2018.odt made in the Affidavit in Reply on behalf of Respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the said land survey Nos. 28/1/A, 68, 69 and 70 cannot be said to be 'Private Forest' under sub-clause (iii) of clause (f ) of Section 2 of the said MPFA and, therefore, there is no vesting in the State Government by virtue of Section 3 of the MPFA. Only on this ground, the prayer of the Petitioners for quashing and setting aside the impugned mutation entry No. 1736 dated 23rd July 2001 in respect of the said land needs to be accepted. The notification under Section 35(1) was issued almost 70 years ago and in the intervening period, the title of the lands has undergone change of hands on few occasions. When the Petitioners have purchased the land, there was no such entry of ‘Forest’ in the revenue record, the Respondents themselves have admitted that though the notification under Section 35(1) of IFA, 1927 was issued on 17.05.1956, but the entry to that effect has not been taken in the revenue record, which was taken only after the circular was issued by the Government dated 14.07.2005. The other document issued to the Petitioner under the RTI Application is the extract of the enquiry under Section 22-A of the MPFA Act, 1975, in respect of Survey No. 1 to 90 of the Village- Mulgaon. The remarks column of the document shows, an order directing to enter the name of ‘State of Maharashtra’ in the possession column of the 7/12 extract, and the name of the owner in the other rights column. This entry has been taken, pending the enquiry under Section 22-A of the MPFA Act, 1975 in furtherance of the circular dated 14.7.2005. It also refers to notice issued under Section 35(3) of the MPFA Act, 1975.” 3. While we declare that the land belonging to the Petitioner is no longer a private forest, we make it clear that we have not pronounced upon the validity of the entry of “forest”, and the Rushikesh 6/6 43 WP.7263.2018.odt name of the Petitioner is directed to be mutated in place of the name of the State Government, as its name was mutated on the basis that it is deemed to be a private forest. The Writ Petition is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. Pending Interim Application also stands disposed of. (ASHISH S. CHAVAN J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.) Rushikesh