Bombay HC hears 184 petitions challenging Maharashtra’s private forest land claims.
Landholders dispute automatic vesting, citing missing statutory procedures under law.
Court examines whether State followed required safeguards before declaring private forests.
The Bombay High Court has pulled up the Maharashtra government for continuing to treat certain lands as “private forests” and vest them in the State without following the procedure laid down under law. The court said this approach was contrary to repeated Supreme Court rulings and had resulted in prolonged uncertainty and avoidable litigation for landholders.
The observations came while the court was hearing a large batch of petitions challenging the State’s claims over lands across Maharashtra. The ruling could affect individuals, families, housing societies, charitable trusts, educational institutions, companies and developers whose land titles have remained uncertain after the State claimed their properties automatically became “private forests” under the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975.
The Indian Express reported that the court criticised the State for what it described as a “defiant approach” despite earlier Supreme Court judgments settling the legal position.
Legal Challenge
A division Bench of Justices Bharati H Dangre and Manjusha A Deshpande was hearing 184 petitions filed by landholders.
The petitioners included individuals, families, cooperative housing societies, charitable trusts, educational institutions, companies and developers from Raigad, Pune, Thane and other parts of Maharashtra.
They challenged the State’s action of treating their lands as private forests vested in the government under the 1975 Act.
At the heart of the dispute was a basic legal question, Can land automatically become a private forest and vest in the State, or must the government first follow the statutory procedure prescribed under the law?
The landholders challenged notifications and revenue entries through which the State claimed ownership over their properties. They argued that their lands could not be treated as having automatically vested in the government merely because the 1975 Act had come into force.
The High Court examined whether the State was required to complete the procedure under the Act and earlier forest laws before declaring such land a private forest.
‘Private Forest’
The Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 was enacted to acquire certain privately owned forest lands and vest them in the State for conservation and management. The law extinguished the rights, titles and interests of owners and other persons in lands covered by its provisions.
However, the Act does not mean that every privately owned piece of land containing trees automatically becomes a private forest.
Section 2(f) of the Act sets out several categories of land that can qualify as a “private forest”. These include lands already declared or recorded as forests under earlier laws, lands covered by certain pending forest proceedings, sites of dwelling houses and appurtenant lands constructed in such forests, and certain lands where action had been initiated under the Indian Forest Act, 1927.
The present dispute concerns Section 2(f)(iii). It covers lands where proceedings under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 had begun before August 30, 1975, when the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act came into force.
The High Court made it clear that the State cannot simply assume that land answering the description of a forest automatically became government-owned private forest land on August 30, 1975.
Before such land can be declared a private forest, the statutory process must be followed. This includes issuing notice to the landholder, considering objections and placing the matter before the committee constituted under the Act before the required notification is issued.
What Has The Supreme Court Said?
The Bombay High Court said the legal position governing private forests has been largely settled through Supreme Court rulings, particularly Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs State of Maharashtra (2014) and Rohan Vijay Nahar v. State of Maharashtra (2025).
The 2014 case arose from a dispute involving land owned by Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd in Vikhroli, Mumbai. The company had challenged the State’s decision to treat its land as a private forest that had vested in the government under the 1975 Act.
The Supreme Court held that the State could not bypass the statutory safeguards under Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act merely because it sought to invoke the 1975 Act.
More than a decade later, the Supreme Court considered a similar issue in Rohan Vijay Nahar Vs State of Maharashtra, involving landowners from Pune district whose lands were claimed by the State to have automatically vested as private forests.
In its 2025 judgment, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle laid down in 2014 and clarified the procedure that must be followed before land can be notified as a private forest.
The Bombay High Court relied on the ruling to reiterate that the 1975 Act did not automatically convert every qualifying piece of land into a private forest on the date it came into force.
The competent authority must first issue notice to the landholder, consider objections, place the matter before the statutory committee and only then issue the required notification.
Why HC Criticise The Maharashtra Govt?
The court said the State had continued to follow an interpretation that had already been rejected by the Supreme Court.
The Bench said the assumption that every piece of land classified as a “forest” automatically became a “private forest” and vested in the State on August 30, 1975 was a misconception.
The judges also described it as “really unfortunate” that the State continued to disregard clear rulings of the Supreme Court, the highest court in the country.
According to The Indian Express, the court linked the State’s approach to the large number of petitions that had reached the High Court.
The Bench also referred to Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution. Article 141 makes the law declared by the Supreme Court binding on all courts in India, while Article 144 requires all authorities to act in aid of the Supreme Court.
The court said that once the law had been laid down, it expected all authorities to follow it.
It also cautioned that continued disregard of binding judicial precedents could invite judicial action. The judges said they did not take pleasure in summoning government officials, but stressed that no authority was above the law.
What Does The Ruling Mean For Landholders?
The key takeaway is that the State cannot treat land as a private forest merely because it was considered a forest when the 1975 Act came into force.
The prescribed procedure must be followed before land can be declared a private forest and vested in the government.
For landholders whose properties have been treated as State-owned private forests without the required procedure, the ruling could provide an important legal basis to challenge such claims.
The Bombay High Court’s observations also underline a wider point: government authorities are bound to follow the legal position laid down by the Supreme Court.
The court has now said it is “high time” that the State’s higher authorities take the necessary steps to ensure strict compliance with the prescribed procedure. The ruling therefore places the focus not only on individual land disputes but also on how Maharashtra authorities implement the law governing private forests.
