MAHARASHTRA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

Citation: [2010] 15 S.C.R. 37 · Decided: 11-11-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[201 OJ 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 37 
MAHARASHTRA LAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 
AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2147-48 of 2004) 
NOVEMBER 11, 2010 
[DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND 
ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] 
A 
8 
Forests - Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, C 
1975 - ss.2 (c-i), 2(f), 3, 4, 5, 6 to 19 and 21 - "Forest" and 
"private forest" - Vesting in the State - State Government 
attempted to acquire the land in question as a "private forest" 
amidst the efforts of the Maharashtra Land Development 
Corporation to continue its quarrying operations in the area D 
- Dispute as to whether on the appointed day, i.e., 30.08.1975 
under the Maharashtra Private (Acquisition) Forest Act, 1975 
the appellant's land of 53 acres was a "private forest" or not -
Held: The provisions of the Act present no apparent conflict 
with the overarching objective of vesting 'private forests' with 
E 
the State in the Government's efforts to protect them - The 
definition of a 'forest' as enunciated in s. 2 (c-i) (ii) is an 
inclusive definition and therefore, it would not be appropriate 
to give it a restrictive meaning - In light of the legislative 
scheme of the Act, and its provisions, it is clear that the 
F 
portion. of land, measuring 53 acres vested with the 
respondent-State as a 'private forest' - That the area fell within 
a part designated as 'forest' on the 30th of August, 1975 is 
beyond dispute and is supported by the evidence on record 
- Therefore, by virtue of s.2 (c-i) (ii), the portion in dispute will G 
also be designated as a 'private forest' u/s. 2(f) -
The 
respondent-State was only acting in accordance with the 
principles envisaged in the Act - This action cannot in any 
way said to be disproportionate or irrational solely because 
37 
H 
38 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 15 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
it divests the appellant-Corporation of the land -
The 
circumstances of this case, especially in so far as it relates 
to the quarrying operations conducted by the appel/ant-
Corporation in the said area, merit that the State protects the 
interests of the general public by acquiring the land as a 
B 
private forest. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Interpretation of Statutes - Preamble to the Act - Held: 
Is the guiding light to its interpretation. 
Administrative Law - Principle of proportionality - Held: 
The Wednesbury principle of reasonableness has given way 
to the doctrine of proportionality - Unless the impugned 
administrative action is advantageous and in public interest 
such an action cannot be upheld - Any administrative 
authority while exercising a discretionary power will have to 
necessarily establish that its decision is balanced and in 
proportion to the object of the power conferred - The test of 
proportionality is concerned with the way in which the decision-
maker has ordered his priorities, i.e., the attribution of relative 
importance to the factors in the case - Thus, it is not so much 
the correctness of the decision that is called into question, but 
the method to reach the same. 
Ecology/Environment - Preservation of the eco-system 
is an immutable duty under the Constitution - A fine balance 
must be struck between environmental protection and 
development. 
The instant appeal was placed in the context of the 
State Government's attempt to acquire the land in 
question as a "private forest", amidst the efforts of the 
Maharashtra Land Development Corporation to continue · 
its quarrying operations in the area. 
The question involved in the instant appeal was as 
to whether on the appointed day, i.e., 30.08.1975 under 
MAHARASHTRA LAND DEV. CORPN. v. STATE OF 
39 
MAHARASHTRA 
the Maharashtra Private (Acquisition) Forest Act, 1975 the 
A 
appellant's land of 53 acres was a "private forest" or not. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1. The instant case is one that must seek to 
attain a fine balance between the process of development 
B 
on the one hand, and the ecological imperative of 
preserving the environment on the other. This Court has 
for long been an outspoken critic of attempts to degrade 
the environment, and a vocal supporter of sustainable 
development. A developing country like ours cannot C 
afford to ignore the growing needs of teeming millions, 
but this development shall have to resonate with the 
preservation of the environment. Preservation of the eco-
system is an immutable duty under the Constitution - a 
/ 
fine balance must be struck between environmenta

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.