GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. & ANR. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 2 S.C.R. 203 · Decided: 30-01-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

(2014] 2 S.C.R. 203 
GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. & ANR. 
v. 
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1102 of 2014) 
JANUARY 30, 2014 
[R.M. LODHA, MADAN B. LOKUR AND 
KURIAN JOSEPH, JJ.] 
FOREST ACT, 1927: 
s.35(3) - Mere issuance of a notice uls.35(3) is not 
sufficient for any/and being .,declared a "private forest" within 
the meaning of that expression as defined in s.2(f)(iii) of the 
Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 - s.35(3) 
A 
B 
c 
is not intended to end the process with the mere issuance of 0 
a notice but it also requires service of a notice on the owner 
of the forest - The need for ensuring service is also to prevent 
damage to or destruction of a forest - In the absence of any 
fime period having been specified for deciding a show cause 
notice issued u/s.35, it must be presumed that it must be 
·decided within a reasonable time - In the instant case, notice 
E 
issued u/s.35(3) after its publication in the Gazette was not 
acted upon either under the provisions of the Forest Act as 
amended from time to time or under the Private Forests Act 
- Admittedly, no attempt was made by the State to take over 
possession of the disputed land at any point of time - On the 
F 
contrary, permissions were granted from time to time for 
construction of buildings on the disputed land - Under the 
circumstances, it cannot be said that any of these disputed 
lands were 'forest' within the primary meaning of that word, or 
even within the extended meaning given in s.2(c-i) of the 
G 
Private Forests Act - Maharashtra Private Forests Acquisition 
Act, 1975 - s.2(c-i), 2(f)(iii). 
s.35(3) - Service of notice - Notice was issued to the 
203 
H 
204 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014) 2 S.y.R. 
A appellant in 1957 but no decision was taken thereon ti/11975, 
that is, for about 18 years - This is an unusually long period 
and undoubtedly much more than a reasonable time had 
elapsed for enabling the State to take a decision on the notice 
- Therefore, the said notice must, for all intents and purposes 
B be treated as having become a dead letter - The said notice 
cannot be described as a 'pipeline notice' since it cannot be 
reasonably said that the pipeline extends from 1956-57 up 
to 1975 - No citizen can reasonably be told after almost half 
a century that he/she was issued a show cause notice (which 
c was not serv,ed also) and based on the said notice his land 
was declared a private forest about three decades ago and 
that it vests in the State - State cannot be allowed to demolish 
the massive constructions made thereon over the last half a 
century - Basic principles of good governance must be 
0 followed by every member of the Executive branch of the 
State at all times keeping the interests of all citizens in mind 
as also the larger public interest. 
MAHARASHTRA PRIVATE FORESTS ACQUISITION. 
ACT, 1975: s.2(f)(iii) - Service of notice - Word "issued" in 
E s.2(f)(iii) of the Act, 1975 rlw s.35 of the Forest Act, 1927 -
Interpretation of - Held: It must be given a broad meaning in 
the surrounding context in which it is used - The scheme of 
s.35 of the Forest Act needs to be kept in mind while 
considering ''issued" in s.2(f)(iii) of the Private Forests Act -
F A notice uls.35(3) ofthe Forest Act is intended to give an 
opportunity to the owner of a forest to show cause why, inter 
alia, a regulatory or a prohibitory measure be not made in 
respect of that forest - Such a notice pre-supposes the 
existence of a forest - The owner of the forest is expected to 
G file objections within a reasonable time as specified in the 
notice and is also given an opportunity to lead evidence in 
support of the objections - After these basic requirements are 
met, the owner of the forest is entitled to a hearing on the 
objections - This entire procedure obviously cannot be 
H followed by the State and the owner of the forest unless the 
GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. v. STATE OF 
205 
MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
owner is served with the notice - s. 2(f)(iii) of the Private Forests 
A 
Act is not intended to apply to notices that had passed their 
shelf-life and that only 'pipeline notices' issued in reasonably 
close proximity to the coming into force of the Private Forests 
Act are 'live' and could be acted upon. 
INTERPRETATION 
OF 
STATUTES: 
Literal 
interpretation or contextual interpretation - Held: Words in a 
statute must be interpreted literally - But at the same time if 
B 
the context in which a word
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.