LexIN RE: CONSTRUCTION OF MULTI STOREYED BUILDINGS IN FOREST LAND MAHARASHTRA versus
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 1382 : 2025 INSC 701 In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra [(I.A. No. 2079 of 2007, I.A. No(s). 2301-2302 of 2008, I.A. No(s). 3044-3045 of 2011, I.A. No. 254946 of 2023 and I.A. No. 39711 of 2024) In (Writ Petition (C) No. 202 of 1995) With (Writ Petition (C) No. 301 of 2008) With (I.A. No. 9108 of 2024) In (Writ Petition (C) No. 301 of 2008)] In Re: T.N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India & Ors. 15 May 2025 [B.R. Gavai,* CJI, Augustine George Masih and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the subject land is a Forest Land; whether the Divisional Commissioner was justified in recommending the allotment of subject land in favour of C family and as to whether the State Government was justified in accepting the said recommendation; whether the doctrine of desuetude and the doctrine of public trust would be applicable to the facts of the case; whether the Housing Society could be said to be bona fide purchaser of the subject land; and whether the Housing Society would be entitled to allotment of alternate piece of land. Headnotes† Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 – s.2 – Restriction on the dereservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose – Certain land notified as a reserved forest under the 1878 Act, and a portion was de-reserved but remaining land of village Kondhwa Budruk in District Pune continued to be forest land – Different parcel of land acquired from C family * Author [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1383 In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra and as an alternative for their resettlement, subject land allotted to family for cultivation on Eksaali-yearly basis, which was never renewed – In 1988, C family applied for permanent release of subject land – Recommendation of the Divisional Commissioner to allot the entire land in favour of C and no necessity to obtain prior approval of Central Government – Thereafter, Minister of Revenue, State Government on advise by the legal department sanctioned the allotment to C – Issuance of allotment order by the Collector – Thereafter, the Divisional Commissioner granted permission to C family to sell land to promoter of the Housing Society for residential purposes – Allotment of reserved forest land to private persons for construction of buildings in violation of 1980 Act – Legality: Held: Allotment of 11.89 ha of Reserve Forest land of village Kondhwa Budruk in District Pune for agriculture purposes in 1998 and subsequent permission given for its sale in favour of Housing Society totally illegal – Said land was notified as Reserved Forest and which reservation continues to be so till date – Nothing on record to show that land was permitted to be used by State for any non-forest purposes prior to 1980 – After the 1980 Act came into effect, no forest land could be de-reserved without the prior approval of the Central Government, also the Forest land could not be assigned either by way of lease or any other mode to any private person without the approval – Opinion given by Law Department, the order approving allotment in favour of the family issued by State Government, and the order of allotment by the Collector took place well after directions were issued by Supreme Court – Decision of the State Government of allotting the land and implementing the same by the Collector not sustainable in law – Furthermore, the doctrine of desuetude not applicable – Subject land has continuously been recorded as ‘Reserved Forest’ in forest records – Forest Authorities through a number of communications had requested Revenue Authorities to correct the revenue entries and transfer the land to the Forest Department – It cannot be said that notification issued under 1878 Act has been put to disuse for a long time – Nothing on record to show that a practice contrary to the provisions of the Act was being applied – Also, the Minister for Revenue and Divisional Commissioner gave a total go-bye to the doctrine of public trust – Furthermore, entries in revenue records do not confer title to property – Much prior to actual allotment of land in the favour of the Housing Society, C family had already entered into transactions with builders – Housing Society could not be said to be a bonafide purchaser of the subject land – C family was only set up as a front 1384 [2025] 5 S.C.R. Supreme Court Report
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.