Supreme Court Holds Service of Section 35(3) Notice Mandatory for Vesting Under Maharashtra Private Forests Law

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale heard appeals challenging Bombay High Court orders that sustained revenue mutations and annotations describing privately held lands as affected by forest proceedings and vested in the State of Maharashtra. The appeals arose from a common controversy over whether old notices under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act (IFA), published in the Gazette in the 1960s, could by themselves trigger vesting under Section 3 of the Maharashtra Private Forests Acquisition Act, 1975 (MPFA) and justify departmental mutations decades later.

The Court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court judgment dated 27.09.2018. The bench summarised that the controlling legal position required strict compliance with the statutory chain before vesting could be declared. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Court also emphasised that “apply precedent as it stands and give effect to appellate directions as they are framed,” underscoring the duty to follow binding precedent.

Background The dispute arose when Maharashtra authorities annotated village revenue records beginning around 2001 to record that certain lands were affected by forest proceedings and had vested in the State under the MPFA. The State relied on Gazette publications of purported Section 35(3) IFA notices from the 1960s and on an inclusive definition of “private forest” in Section 2(f)(iii) of the MPFA. Landowners contended that notices were not personally served as required by Section 35(5) IFA, that no inquiry or final notification under Section 35(1) IFA took place, possession was never taken under Section 5 MPFA, and no compensation was paid. They challenged the mutations by writ petitions seeking quashment and restoration of records.

The High Court sustained the mutations, treating publication and archival entries as sufficient proof of issuance and vesting and distinguishing the three-Judge Bench decision in Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra. The Supreme Court reviewed the statutory scheme (IFA, MPFA and the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code), earlier decisions including Godrej & Boyce (which held that a mere issued but unserved show-cause notice could not found vesting), and the factual record. The Court found no evidence of service of Section 35(3) notices on then-owners, no final notifications under Section 35(1) IFA, no contemporaneous steps under Sections 4–7 MPFA, and persistent private possession and revenue entries indicating occupation. The Court held that post-hoc materials (satellite imagery, late panchnamas, or undated possession papers) could not cure the absence of statutory preconditions and that mutation entries were ministerial and could not create or divest title. The Supreme Court therefore set aside the High Court order, quashed all mutation orders and declarations treating the lands as private forests, and directed consequential corrections in revenue records. The Court granted the State liberty to initiate lawful proceedings afresh, if it so wished, following due process. All pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1296 (CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5454 OF 2019 ETC.) Case Title: Rohan Vijay Nahar & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Advocates not indicated in the judgment text provided For the Respondent(s): Advocates not indicated in the judgment text provided