ROHAN VIJAY NAHAR & ORS. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [2025] 11 S.C.R. 500 · Decided: 07-11-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 11 S.C.R. 500 : 2025 INSC 1296
Rohan Vijay Nahar & Ors. 
v. 
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 5454 of 2019)
07 November 2025
[Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to sustainability of the order passed by the High 
Court in batch of writ petitions wherein the landholders questioned 
the legality of revenue annotations and mutation entries that 
described their lands as affected by forest proceedings and as 
having vested in the State.
Headnotes†
Forest Act, 1927 – s.35 – Protection of forests for special 
purposes – Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 
1975 (MPFA) – 2(f)(iii) – Private forest – Writ petitions by the 
landholders challenging the legality of revenue annotations 
and mutation entries that described their lands as affected 
by forest proceedings and as having vested in the State – 
Petitioners sought quashing of those entries and a declaration 
that their lands were not private forests within the meaning of 
the MPFA, and directions to restore the record of rights in the 
names of the private owners and for consequential reliefs to 
protect title and possession – High Court declined to interfere 
with the revenue mutations and annotations that described the 
subject lands as affected by forest proceedings and as having 
vested in the State, it proceeded on the footing that notices said 
to have been issued around 1960 and published in the Official 
Gazette were sufficient foundation to treat the lands as private 
forest under the acquisition regime – High Court dismissed the 
writ petitions and refused the declaratory and consequential 
reliefs sought by the landholders – Sustainability:
Held: Not sustainable – For vesting to occur u/s.3(1) of the MPFA 
Act on the footing of s.2(f)(iii), a notice u/s.35(3) of the IFA must 
not only be issued but must also be served up-on the landholder 
* Author
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 
501
Rohan Vijay Nahar & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
because service alone triggers the owner’s right to object, and 
obliges the State to consider such objection – Notice that grants 
time for objections cannot coexist with a final decision u/s.35(1) 
without rendering the statutory hearing illusory – Mutation en-
tries are ministerial in nature and cannot perfect an acquisition 
that lacks the statutory predicates – They neither create title 
in the State nor divest title from the private owner – On facts, 
essential links in the statutory chain are missing – No proof of 
service of any s.35(3) notice of the IFA on the then owners, no 
final notification u/s.35(1) of the IFA – Actual possession has at 
all times remained with private owners which is reflected in the 
revenue records that describe them as occupants – No possession 
was taken, no schemes set in motion, no compensation exercise 
undertaken, and no inquiry held at a time proximate to the 
appointed day – Materials produced by the State include undated 
and unverified possession papers that do not inspire confidence 
when set against decades of undisturbed private possession, 
these features are wholly inconsistent with a completed vesting 
u/s.3(1) of the MPFA Act – Satellite imagery and panchnamas 
drawn in 2016 do not establish the character of the lands on the 
appointed day – Nineteenth century notification, invoked for the 
first time at the appellate stage to suggest linkage with a reserved 
forest, not the foundation of the impugned mutations and cannot 
be used to improve the case now – Administrative orders must 
stand or fall on the reasons originally given and the High Court 
could not sustain vesting on grounds that were never the basis 
of action – Absence of any notification u/s.34A of the IFA further 
weakens the State’s position – Restoration u/s.22A of the MPFA 
Act presupposes a lawful vesting – When the foundational vesting 
is unproven, any purported restoration cannot cure the defect, 
and in any event the limited window created by s.22A cannot 
be reopened decades later – Expropriatory legislation must be 
construed strictly and Art.300-A requires that no person is deprived 
of property save by authority of law – When a statute prescribes 
a manner of doing a thing, it must be done in that manner or not 
at all – Several mandatory steps are absent – Any one missing 
step would defeat vesting – Thus, the High Court erred in treating 
the case as if only a consequential mutation remained – Record 
shows that the revenue e

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