E-Paper
Forest dept. preparing review petition to reclaim private forest lands in Maha
The issue has become especially important for the forest department as most of these lands fall in the western ghats, a global biodiversity hotspot
Following the Supreme Court’s (SC’s) November 8 judgment allowing individual owners to retain possession of private forest lands in Maharashtra, the state forest department is preparing to file a review petition to regain ownership of thousands of hectares of such land. “We are examining all documents and old notices issued decades ago. The review petition is being drafted and will be filed in December,” said Mahadev Mohite, deputy conservator of forests.
The issue has become especially important for the forest department as most of these lands fall in the western ghats, a global biodiversity hotspot. Forest officials and wildlife experts fear that the SC ruling may cause large-scale damage to this fragile ecosystem.
On November 8, the SC struck down a 2018 Bombay High Court (HC) judgment that treated several privately-owned lands in Maharashtra as ‘private forests’ vested in the state. The apex court ruled that the government cannot claim ownership unless it follows all procedural requirements under forest laws.
A bench of justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B Varale allowed 96 appeals filed by landowners from Mumbai, Pune, Thane and other districts. The SC said that the Bombay HC had ignored key legal requirements, and not followed the SC’s earlier ruling in the Godrej and Boyce case.
The SC clarified that issuing or publishing a notice in the Gazette in the 1950s or 1960s does not automatically convert private land into state property. Such notices must be properly served to landowners who must be given an opportunity to object. Only after completing this process can a final decision be made under the Indian Forests Act.
The SC noted that in the instant cases, there was no proof that notices had been served; objections heard; and final notifications issued. The apex court also said that the state never took physical possession of the land, which remained in the owners’ use for decades.
The judges criticised the Bombay HC for treating mutation entries as evidence of state ownership even though mutations are administrative entries that do not create title. They said that the HC had relied on surveys and documents irrelevant to determining whether the land qualified as ‘forest’ on the crucial date—August 30, 1975—when the Maharashtra Private Forests Act came into force.
Calling the HC’s reasoning ‘misguided’ and inconsistent with precedent, the SC bench said that subsequent purchasers are also protected and cannot lose their property rights due to incomplete proceedings from decades earlier.
The SC ordered that all mutation entries marking these lands as private forests be removed, and revenue records be restored in the landowners’ names. While the SC verdict is a relief for landowners, it is a setback for the Maharashtra forest department which expected the decision to go in its favour, allowing it to take possession of thousands of hectares of private forest land, most of it in the western ghats.
According to official data, Pune district alone has 11,495 hectares of private forest land under dispute.
“In Pune, private forests are mostly in the Mulshi, Velhe and Maval tehsils—areas in the northern western ghats. Without regulatory control, these ecologically sensitive stretches may face irreversible degradation,” Mohite said.
The western ghats are already under pressure from agricultural expansion and rapid infrastructure growth. Officials warn that the SC ruling may further open doors for commercial and residential projects, leading to added fragmentation of this globally important landscape.
“We are preparing a fresh draft of the review petition. Our primary argument is that land falling under the ‘means’ category as defined in section 2 (c) (i) of the Maharashtra Private Forests Acquisition Act, 1975, should rightfully be handed over to the forest department. We are also examining several additional grounds to strengthen the plea,” Mohite said.
