Supreme Court Reaffirms Mandatory Service of Section 35(3) Notices Before Vesting Private Forests Under MPFA

Case Name: Rohan Vijay Nahar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (96 connected civil appeals)
Citation: 2025 INSC 1296
Date of Judgment/Order: 07 November 2025
Bench: Vikram Nath, J.; Prasanna B. Varale, J.

Held: The Supreme Court held that land cannot vest in the State under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Private Forests Acquisition Act (MPFA) unless a valid notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act (IFA) has not only been issued but duly served on the landowner, triggering the statutory opportunity to object. The Court ruled that the Bombay High Court erred in treating decades-old Gazette reproductions and ministerial mutations as proof of compliance with mandatory statutory requirements. The Court reaffirmed the binding ratio of Godrej & Boyce, rejected the High Court’s attempt to distinguish it on irrelevant grounds, and declared that stale, unserved, or incomplete notices from the 1950s–60s could not support vesting after 30 August 1975. The absence of service, absence of a final Section 35(1) notification, and absence of contemporaneous action under Sections 4–7 of the MPFA made the State’s vesting claim legally untenable.

Summary: The appeals arose from a common 2018 Bombay High Court judgment upholding revenue mutations that branded hundreds of privately owned lands as “private forest” based solely on alleged Section 35(3) IFA notices from the 1960s. The landowners argued that they were never served any notice, that no enquiry or final notification under Section 35(1) ever occurred, and that the State never took possession or paid compensation as required by the MPFA. The High Court dismissed these pleas, relying on Gazette extracts, Golden Register entries, and the petitioners’ status as subsequent purchasers. The Supreme Court examined the statutory framework of the IFA, MPFA, MLRC and the precedents—including Godrej & Boyce, which requires service and a live, proximate process before vesting can occur. After an extensive factual and legal review, the Court found that the State produced no reliable proof of service, no contemporaneous steps under the MPFA, no lawful foundation for vesting, and relied on materials created decades after 1975. The High Court’s distinctions between original owners and subsequent purchasers were rejected as artificial, inconsistent with Article 141, and contrary to the logic of expropriatory statutes which must be strictly construed.

Decision: Allowing all 96 civil appeals, the Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court’s judgment dated 27 September 2018 and quashed all mutation entries and declarations branding the subject lands as private forests. The Court directed that revenue records be corrected accordingly and restored in favour of the landowners. While acknowledging the State’s liberty to initiate fresh proceedings, the Court held that any such action must strictly follow statutory procedure from the beginning, with due service and adherence to the requirements of the IFA and MPFA. All pending applications were disposed of.