IN RE- CONSTRUCTION OF MULTI STOREYED BUILDINGS IN FOREST LAND MAHARASHTRA versus

Citation: 2025 INSC 701, [2025] 5 S.C.R. 1382

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: B.R. Gavai, CJI, Augustine George Masih and K. Vinod Chandran, JJ.

Judgment text

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA In Re: T. N. Godavarman Thirumalpad v. Union of India & Ors. [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 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 Societytotally 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 for the benefit of the Developers - Agricultural land of C family was acquired, was being misused by the developers as a pretext for grabbing the valuable piece of Forest Land for the purposes of commercial development - Transactions between the Housing Society and C family totally illegal and contrary to the conditions on which the land was allotted to C family - Housing Society not entitled to allotment of alternative piece of land, as that would amount to granting a premium to Housing Society for illegalities committed by them - Allotment of the subject land to C family in blatant disregard to the provisions of the law as well as the directions issued by this Court from time to time, as also ignoring the communications of the Forest Department that the said land could not be allotted inasmuch as, the same was classified as a Forest Land - In view thereof, the environmental clearance granted to Housing Society illegal and is quashed and set aside - Possession of the land, reserved as Forest Land, and are in possession of Revenue Department, to be handed over to Forest Department - Special Investigation Teams to be constituted to examine if any of the reserved Forest Land in the possession of the Revenue Department has been allotted to any private individuals/institutions for the purpose other than the forestry purpose - Government to take steps to take back the possession of such land and handover the same to the Forest Department, and in case, taking back not in the larger public interest, the governments to recover the cost of the said land from the allottees and use the said amount for development of forests - Special Teams to ensure that all such transfers take place within the stipulated period and such land to be used only for the purpose of afforestation - Forest Act, 1878.

[Paras 20-22, 24, 28, 37, 38, 43, 44, 47, 52, 64, 71, 73, 77, 90, 91, 95] Doctrines - Doctrine of desuetude - Applicability: Held: For applicability of the doctrine of desuetude, the statute must not only be required to be in disuse for long duration but instead a contrary practice must also be prevalent. [Para 42] Case Law Cited State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi and Others,1985 INSC 126 : [1985] Supp. 1 SCR 345 : (1985) 3 SCC 643 - held inapplicable. Municipal Corporation for City of Pune and anr v. Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. and Ors. , 1995 INSC 181 : [1995] 2 SCR 716 : (1995) 3 SCC 434; State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Shamrao Puranik and Ors. , 1982 INSC 78 : [1983] 1 SCR 655 : (1982) 3 SCC 519; Cantonment Board, MHOW and Anr v. M. P. State Road In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra Transport Corpn. , 1997 INSC 401 : [1997] 3 SCR 813 : (1997) 9 SCC 450; Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited v.

Union of India and Others, 2012 INSC 305 : [2012] 7 SCR 644 : (2012) 11 SCC 1; In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra, I. A. No. 2771-2772 of 2009 in WP(C) No. 202 of 1995 dt 9th September 2024; Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat and Ors. , 1986 INSC 267 : [1987] 1 SCR 562 : (1987) 1 SCC 213; Nature Lovers Movement v. State of Kerala, 2009 INSC 371 : [2009] 4 SCR 687 : (2009) 5 SCC 373; Suraj Bhan and others v. Financial Commissioner and Ors. , 2007 INSC 424 : [2007] 5 SCR 155 : (2007) 6 SCC 186; P. Kishor Kumar v. Vittal K. Patkar, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1483; In Re: T. N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Union of India and Ors. , 2024 INSC 178 : [2024] 3 SCR 187 : (2025) 2 SCC 641 - referred to. List of Acts Forest Act, 1878; Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980; Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.

List of Keywords Reserved forest; Nexus between politicians, bureaucrats and builders; Eksaali; Environmental clearance; Reserved forest land; Forged Gazette Notification; Prior approval by Central Government; Non-forest purposes; Doctrine of desuetude; Protection and conservation of forest; Bona fide purchaser; Illegal transactions; Doctrine of public trust; Non-forestry purposes; Afforestation; Forest Land; Allotment of alternate piece of land; Village Kondhwa Budruk in District Pune; Special Investigation Teams. Case Arising From CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Under Article 32 of The Constitution of India 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 and I. A. No. 9108 of 2024 In Writ Petition (C) No. 301 of 2008 1386 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Petitioner: K. Parameshwar, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Dr.

Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Dhruv Mehta, Yashraj Singh Deora, Sr. Advs. , M. V. Kunda, Ms. Kanti, Ms. Raji, Srinivas Patil, Ms. Chitransha Singh Shikarwar, Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, M/s. Plr Chambers And Co. , Syed Mehdi Imam, T. Harish Kumar, Priyesh Mohan Srivastava, Ms. Anupama Dhurve, Ms. Sonal K Chopra, M/s. Mitter & Mitter Co. , M/s. Lawyer S Knit & Co. Advs. for the Respondents: Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave, K. M. Nataraj, A. S. Gs. , Ms. Garima Prashad, Sr. A. A. G. , Shiv Mangal Sharma, Vaibhav Srivastava, Ajay Agarwal, A. A. Gs. , Pitambar Acharya, Advocate General, Vivek Jain, D. A. G. , Shekhar Naphade, Aniruddha Joshi, Ravindra Kumar, Mrs. Ruchi Kohli, Dr. Monika Gusain, Sr. Advs. ,, Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Chinmoy Khaladkar, B. K. Pal, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla, Ms. Aditya Krishna, Ms. Preet S.

Phanse, Adarsh Dubey, Shuvodeep Roy, Deepayan Dutta, Saurabh Tripathi, Gaichangpou Gangmei, Raj Kishor Choudhary, Shibashish Misra, Manav Sabharwal, K. L. Janjani, Naresh K. Sharma, Ms. A. Sumathi, Jai Prakash Pandey, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, K. V. Vijayakumar, Mrs. Rani Chhabra, Ms. Divya Roy, Tarun Johri, Radha Shyam Jena, Ajit Pudussery, Ashok Mathur, M/s. Parekh & Co. , M/s. K J John And Co, V. Balachandran, S. C. Birla, Ram Swarup Sharma, T. Mahipal, Umesh Bhagwat, Mrs. M. Qamaruddin, H. S. Parihar, Ms. Baby Krishnan, P. R. Ramasesh, Ms. Adviteeya, Rakesh K. Sharma, P. N. Gupta, Sarad Kumar Singhania, Mahesh Agarwal, Nilay Gupta, E. C. Agrawala, Kuldip Singh, Ms. Bina Madhavan, Ms. Pratibha Jain, Rajat Joseph, Gopal Prasad, Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, S.. Udaya Kumar Sagar, Ranjan Mukherjee, Tejaswi Kumar Pradhan, M/s. Arputham Aruna And Co, Mrs. Nandini Gore, Raj Kumar Mehta, Ms. Madhu Moolchandani, Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, Rajeev Singh, Mrs. Kanchan Kaur Dhodi, Surya Kant, E. C.

Vidya Sagar, M/s. M. V. Kini & Associates, Mrs. B. Sunita Rao, Kamal Mohan Gupta, Prashant Kumar, Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Kanisk Mor, Mrs. Shweta Sand, Raju Sonkar, P. Parmeswaran, Ms. Sujata Kurdukar, Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, Bhavanishankar V. Gadnis, A. Venayagam Balan, Vishwanath Gadnis, Sudarsh Menon, Ramesh Babu M. R. , Vikrant Singh Bais, Shiva Pujan Singh, Ms. Charu Mathur, Rajiv Mehta, Ejaz Maqbool, Rajesh, M/s. Corporate Law Group, Lakshmi In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra Raman Singh, Ms. K. V. Bharathi Upadhyaya, Sufyan Hasan, Ms. Hema Malik, T. N. Singh, Rajendra Sahu, C. L. Sahu, Ms. Hema Sahu, Manmohan Sharma, Rishabh Sahu, Ms. Sumita Hazarika, Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Abhishek Chaudhary, B V Deepak, Gopal Singh, T. V. George, Krishnanand Pandeya, Neeraj Shekhar, Ujjwal Ashutosh, Rajesh Kumar Maurya, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Rajesh Singh, Mrs. Rekha Pandey, Mohd.

Irshad Hanif, Punit Dutt Tyagi, Rathin Das, Ratan Kumar Choudhuri, Sudhir Kulshreshtha, Himanshu Shekhar, Parth Shekhar, Shubham Singh, Youkteshwari Prasad, Mukesh Kumar Verma, Mata Prasad Pathak, Vijay Singh, Ms. Ambali Vedasen, Ayush Gupta, Rishabh Jain, Chandrakant Siddarkar, Rajmani Mohanty, Somyadeep Chatterjee, Rajiv Ranjan, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Ms. Sushma Suri, Sudhir Kumar Gupta, A. N. Arora, Irshad Ahmad, G. Prakash, E. M. S. Anam, Mrs. Bina Gupta, P. V. Yogeswaran, Jitendra Mohan Sharma, Ms. Malini Poduval, Ms. C. K. Sucharita, Ms. Binu Tamta, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Ms. Aditya Krishna, Adarsh Dubey, M. Yogesh Kanna, Vikash Singh, Abhishek Atrey, Ms. Mrinal Gopal Elker, Chinmoy Chaitanya, Dhaval Mehrotra, Binay Kumar Das, Ms. Priyanka Das, Ms. Neha Das, Shivam Saksena, Vikas Bharti, Ms. Lakshmi N. Kaimal, Subhasish Mohanty, Mr Rahul Jain, Sabarish Subramanian, Naveen Kumar, V. N. Raghupathy, Raghavendra M.

Kulkarni, Venkata Raghu Mannepalli, M/s. D. S. K. Legal, Ms. Shibani Ghosh, Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Saurabh Rajpal, Amogh Bansal, Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Ms. Pallavi Langar, Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Saurabh Singh Chauhan, M/s. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, Sandeep Kumar Jha, Ms. Nidhi Jaswal, Milind Kumar, Mohit Paul, Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, Ms. Manika Tripathy, Ms. Ankita Sharma, Arjun D Singh, Ms. Supreeta Sharanagouda, Sharanagouda Patil, Jyotish Pandey, Yash, Ms. Adarsh Nain, Guntur Pramod Kumar, Ms. Prerna Singh, Dhruv Yadav, Amrish Kumar, Ms. Purnima Krishna, M. f. Philip, Karamveer Singh Yadav, Togin M. Babichen, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Raghav Sharma, Jagdish Chandra Solanki, S. s. Rebello, Suhasini Sen, Gaurang Bhushan, Dr. Surender Singh Hooda, Ms. Tannu, Yuvarj Nandal, Sunil Kumar Verma, Prakash Kumar Singh, Ms. Seita Vaidyalingam, Kumar Anurag Singh, Anando Mukherjee, Shwetank Singh, Ms. Anzu. K. Varkey, Ms. Astha Sharma, T. R. B.

Sivakumar, Sujit Kumar Mishra, Aldanish Rein, Kunal Mimani, Ms. Shraddha Chirania, Nishanth Patil, M/s. Venkat Palwai Law Associates, Ajay Marwah, Ravindra S. Garia, Karan Sharma, Ms. Sugandha Anand, Avijit Mani Tripathi, T. K. Nayak, Vikas Bansal, Deeptakirti Verma, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Chirag M. Shroff, Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, Vivek Jain, Sudeep Kumar, Ms. Manisha, Ms. Rupali, Ms. Rani Mishra, Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Karun Sharma, Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Venkata Raghuvamsy D. , Rajeev Kumar Dubey, Ashiwan Mishra, Kamlendra Mishra, Somesh Chandra Jha, Tarun Bajaj, Ms. Ruchira Goel, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Ms. Aditya Krishna, Adarsh Dubey, Parth Awasthi, Pashupathi Nath Razdan, Tarun Gupta, Sameer Abhyankar, Rahul Kumar, Aakash Thakur, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, P. S. Sudheer, Sunny Choudhary, Siddhartha Jha, Naved Anwar, Gurrick Jassar, Naveen . N, N. Nagan Pillai, M/s. V. Maheshwari & Co.

, Mayank Aggarwal, Sanjeev Kumar, Shovan Mishra, Ashutosh Kumar Sharma, Naveen Kumar, P. K. Manohar, Vinod Sharma, Ms. Surbhi Mehta, Rajeev Singh, Ms. Parul Shukla, Abhishek Pandey, Prashant Kumar Umrao, Arun K. Sinha, Ms. Sakshi Kakkar, Shakti Singh, B. K. Pal, James P. Thomas, S. Gowthaman, A. Karthik, Rajiv Kumar Choudhry, Anurag Tandon, Akshay Amritanshu, Hariom Yaduvanshi, Arjun Yaduvanshi, Ms. S. Harini, Avi Dhankhar, Vansmani Tripathi, Ms. Aahana Jaiswal, Ms. Drishti Rawal, Ms. Pragya Upadhyay, Ms. Drishti Saraf, Omanakuttan K. K. , Ajit Sharma, Yuvrajsinh C. Solanki, Lareb Habib Ansari, Kanchan Kumar, Ms. Shalini Kaul, Sunil Kumar Sharma, Ms. Swati Ghildiyal, Ms. Neha Singh, Siddharth Sharma, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Uday Prakash Yadav, Raghav Sharma, Sughosh Subramanium, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Ms. Suhasini Sen, S. S. Rebello, Samir Ali Khan, Pranjal Sharma, Kashif Irshad Khan, Sachin Patil, Shubhranshu Padhi, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Alim Anvar, Ms.

Anu K Hoy, Santhosh K, Nishit Agrawal, Krishna Ballabh Thakur, Ms. Aruna Gupta, Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Amit Kumar Singh, Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Prang Newmai, Shishir Deshpande, Yusuf, Mrs. Pragya Baghel, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Raghvendra Kumar, Sravan Kumar Karanam, Abhiram Bannur, Ms. Shireesh Tyagi, Anant Mann, Lakshmeesh S. Kamath, Gopal Balwant Sathe, Sarvam Ritam Khare, Shyam Gopal, Salvador Santosh Rebello, Ms. Suhasini Sen, Raghav Sharma, Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Harish Pandey, Ms. Indira Bhakar, Anuj Srinivas Udupa, Krishna Kant Dubey, Piyush Beriwal, Neeraj Kumar Sharma, Ms. Mrinal Elker Mazumdar, Shashwat Parihar, Mukesh K Verma, Vinayak Sharma, Raman Yadav, Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, Ms. Sunieta Ojha, Dinesh Chandra Pandey, Saurabh Rajpal, Ashzad Mubarak, Himinder Lal, Ms. Shruti Jose, Kaushik Choudhury, Aravindh S. , Aadithya Aravindh, Mrs. Kirti Renu Mishra, Atul Sharma, Anirudh Sanganeria, Shrey Kapoor, Ms. Anne Mathew, Yash S. Vijay. Applicant-in-person.

In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 3* II. FACTUAL POSITION ............................................................ 3* a. Background ................................................................... 3* b. Actions of the State Government ............................... 6* c. Acquisition and Construction by RRCHS .................. 9* d. Proceedings before this Court ................................... 10* III. SUBMISSIONS ....................................................................... 15* IV. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION .......................................... 19* V. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS ............................................. 20* a. As to whether the subject land is a Forest Land. ..... 20* b.

As to whether the Divisional Commissioner was justified in recommending the allotment of subject land in favour of the 'Chavan Family' and as to whether the State Government was justified in accepting the said recommendation. ................................................... 25* c. As to whether the doctrine of desuetude would be applicable to the facts of the present case. ....................... 38* d. As to whether the RRCHS could be said to be a bona fide purchaser of the subject land. ............................. 42* e. As to whether the RRCHS would be entitled to allotment of alternate piece of land in view of the order passed by this Court in In Re: "Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra". ......................... 52* f. As to whether the doctrine of public trust would be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. ................................................................. 57* VI.

CONCLUSION ....................................................................... 85* * Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment. 1390 Judgment B. R. Gavai, CJI I. INTRODUCTION 1. The present matter is a classic example as to how the nexus between the Politicians, Bureaucrats and the Builders can result in the conversion of precious Forest Land for commercial purposes under the garb of resettlement of people belonging to the backward class from whose ancestors, agricultural land was acquired for public purpose. II. FACTUAL POSITION 2. The facts in brief, shorn of unnecessary details, giving rise to present proceedings are as under: a. Background 2. 1 An area admeasuring 32 Acres 35 Gunthas at Survey No. 20 of Village Kondhwa Budruk in Pune District was notified as a Reserved Forest under the provisions of Section 34 of the Indian Forest Act, 1878 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1878 Act") vide Notification dated 1st March 1879. 2.

2 A portion of the land admeasuring 3 Acres 20 Gunthas was de-reserved by the State Government vide Notification dated 5th January 1934. 2. 3 It is pertinent to note that no further orders for de-reservation were passed post 1934. As a result of which the remaining area of 29 Acres and 15 Gunthas, which was numbered as Survey No. 20-A and subsequently renumbered as Survey No. 21 of Village Kondhwa Budruk remained to be a Forest Land (hereinafter referred to as "the subject land"). 2. 4 During the 1960s, a different parcel of land in Survey No. 37 of Kondhwa Budruk belonging to one 'Chavan Family' was acquired by the State Government for the purposes of construction of "Dr. Bandorwala Leprosy Hospital". 2. 5 It appears from the record that no compensation was paid to the 'Chavan Family'. As such, a request was made by them In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra for allotment of the subject land as an alternative for their resettlement. 2.

6 It further appears from the record that in response to the request made by the 'Chavan Family', the Tehsildar, Haveli vide his communication dated 13th May 1968, released the subject land to the 'Chavan Family' for cultivation for a period of one year. The subject land was allotted on "Eksali" (yearly) basis for the year 1968-69. 2. 7 The said allotment was accepted by the 'Chavan Family'. The members of the 'Chavan Family' had also given an undertaking to the Mamlatdar, Taluka-Haveli, District Pune. The relevant part of the said undertaking reads thus: "I accept and agree that the said assessment is allotted to me under the provision of Bombay Land Revenue Code 1879 and rules thereunder and shall be subjected to following terms and conditions. 1. That, no part of the said land shall be leased out, mortgaged, sold, excavated or no lien shall be created by me (the term includes self, heirs, executers, assignees, administrators) without prior written approval of the Collector. 2.

That, I will handover the possession of the land to any person nominated by the Collector without any hassle on or before 15/12/1967. 3. That, I will not use the said assessment for any purpose other than cultivation. 4. That, I do not have any right of the trees standing on the land and I will behave as per the rules annexed herewith. " 2. 8 It is pertinent to note that a perusal of the record would reveal that the said Eksali (yearly) lease was never renewed thereafter. 2. 9 It further appears from the record that on 22nd March 1969, the State Government took a decision that the Forest Land given on lease for cultivation on Eksali basis should be permanently released for cultivation to the Eksali leaseholders after de-reservation. 1392 2. 10 It appears that in pursuance of this resolution, the 'Chavan Family' made an application for permanent release of the subject land in the year 1988. 2.

11 It is relevant to note that in the meanwhile, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as, "the 1980 FC Act") came into force with effect from 25th October 1980. Under the provisions of Section 2 of the 1980 FC Act, no Forest Land could be de-reserved or used for any non-forest purposes without the permission of the Central Government. b. Actions of the State Government 2. 12 A perusal of the record would reveal that there was a lot of inter-departmental correspondence between the different authorities. It appears that the District Collector vide his letter dated 19th June 1991 found that the members of the 'Chavan Family' were cultivating only 3 Acres and 20 Gunthas and, therefore, recommended that the said area which was under actual cultivation be allotted to them in view of the Government Resolution dated 22nd March 1969. He further recommended that the possession of the remaining land be handed over to the Forest Department. 2.

13 However, surprisingly, the Divisional Commissioner vide his recommendation to the State Government dated 30th November 1994, though, specifically recorded that as per the Collector's report, the members of the 'Chavan Family' were in cultivation only in 3 Acres and 20 Gunthas, recommended allotment of the entire subject land to the 'Chavan Family'. It is further surprising to note that the Divisional Commissioner also observed that there is no necessity to obtain the prior approval of the Central Government for allotment of the said land. It is also surprising to note that the Divisional Commissioner also noted that the subject land was a Reserved Forest. 2. 14 It appears that thereafter the file was pending before the State Government.

At that stage, the then Minister for Revenue opined that the said land was granted by the Government for Agricultural purpose and that the applicants (the 'Chavan Family') were using the said land continuously for such purpose and, therefore, the provisions of the 1980 FC Act were not In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra applicable in the said case. He therefore sought legal advice on the point from the Law and Judiciary Department of the Government of Maharashtra. This could be gathered from the reply given by the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Revenue and Forest Department dated 8th April 2008 to the Central Empowered Committee ("CEC" for short) in response to certain queries. 2.

15 It would further appear that thereafter on 27th July 1998, the Deputy Secretary to Government, Law and Judiciary Department, gave his opinion that there is no necessity for obtaining prior sanction of the Government of India if the Forest Land is already broken up and acquired before coming into force of the 1980 FC Act. Accordingly, the Minister for Revenue, the Government of Maharashtra sanctioned the allotment of the subject land and an order came to be issued by the Government of Maharashtra vide Memorandum dated 4th August 1998 to that effect. 2. 16 In pursuance to the order passed by the State Government, the Collector issued an order of allotment of land on 28th August 1998. The said allotment, however, was subject to certain conditions. It will be relevant to refer to Condition Nos.

2, 4, 5 and 7 of the said allotment order dated 28th August 1998, which read thus: "2) The allottee shall not be entitled to mortgage, donate, sell, partition or exchange in any other manner without the prior permission of the District Collector, Pune. Similarly, shall not sell or transfer the said land or any part thereof. xxx xxx xxx 4) The allotee shall not lease the aforesaid land granted to him to any other person. 5) It is necessary for the allottee to bring the said land under cultivation within a period of two years from the date of this order. xxx xxx xxx 1394 7) The said land shall be used for agricultural purposes. Except agriculture, it shall not be used for any other purpose. " c. Acquisition and Construction by RRCHS 2. 17 It would further appear from the record that immediately after the land was allotted, the Divisional Commissioner vide order dated 30th October 1999 granted permission to the 'Chavan Family' to sell the land in question to one Mr. Aniruddha P.

Deshpande, the Chief Promotor of Richie Rich Cooperative Housing Society Limited ("RRCHS" for short) for residential purposes. 2. 18 However, a perusal of the material on record would reveal that much prior to the said permission or even much prior to the actual allotment of the subject land to the 'Chavan Family', the transactions were entered into by the members of the 'Chavan Family' with Mr. Aniruddha P. Deshpande, Chief Promoter, RRCHS. We will be referring to those documents when we discuss the rival submissions. 2. 19 The District Collector, Pune thereafter vide order dated 8th July 2005 granted permission for use of the subject land for Non-Agricultural purposes i. e. for construction of the residential buildings. 2. 20 On 27th February 2006, the Pune Municipal Corporation issued a Commencement Certificate and sanctioned the Building Plan. 2.

21 Thereafter, on 3rd July 2007, the Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) granted environmental clearance for construction of "Raheja Richmond Park", a Residential, Shopping and IT Complex. d. Proceedings before this Court 2. 22 After noticing the aforesaid aspects, one Nagrik Chetna Manch filed I. A. No. 2079-2080 of 2007 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 1995 before this Court challenging the allotment of Reserved Forest Land to private persons and its use for construction of multi-storeyed buildings in violation of the 1980 FC Act. In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra 2. 23 In the said proceedings, this Court vide order dated 23rd November 2007, directed the CEC to enquire into the matter and submit its report. 2. 24 In pursuance to the orders passed by this Court, the CEC started conducting enquiries into the matter and held various meetings. When the CEC started conducting enquiries, various queries were made to the State Government.

The Revenue and Forest Department of the State of Maharashtra issued a notice dated 2nd July 2008 to the RRCHS and one of the members of the 'Chavan Family' thereby informing them about the Government's decision to review the Government Order dated 4th August 1998 vide which the land was allotted to the 'Chavan Family'. 2. 25 It would further appear that the Forest Department issued a notice to the RRCHS dated 4th July 2008, notifying the RRCHS that the possession of the subject land was required to be taken back. Aggrieved thereby, the RRCHS filed I. A. No. 2301-2302 of 2008 in I. A. No. 2079 of 2007 praying for impleadment as well as challenging the aforementioned notices dated 2nd July 2008 and 4th July 2008. 2. 26 The said RRCHS also filed a writ petition being Writ Petition (Civil) No.

301 of 2008, praying for the following reliefs: "(a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for quashing the notice dated 2. 7. 2008 bearing no. Land-3408/1025/ PKP 935/Part 2/J-5, issued by the State Government; and/or (b) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order or direction under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for quashing the notice dated 4. 7. 2008 bearing no. 57 of 2008-09, issued by the Forest Department, Government of Maharashtra; and/or (c) Pass such other of further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. " 1396 2. 27 After an elaborate enquiry, the CEC submitted its report dated 27th November 2008 and recommended thus: i) the allotment of 11. 89 ha of Reserve Forest land in Survey No. 21 (old Survey No.

20A) Kondhwa Bk in District Pune for agriculture purposes and subsequent permission given for its sale in favour of M/s Richie Rich Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and construction of buildings should be cancelled. ii) the area should be restored back as forest; iii) the senior functionaries and officers of the Government of Maharashtra responsible for the allotment/use of the said Reserve Forest land in violation of the provision of the FC Act and this Hon'ble Court's order dated 12. 12. 1996 should be prosecuted for criminal breach of trust and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code. It is imperative that amongst others the then Revenue Minister, Maharashtra, who approved the land allotment along with the then Divisional Commissioner, Pune who granted the permission for the sale of the land in favour of private person for the construction of buildings, Mr.

Ashok Khadse, the then Deputy Conservator of Forests, Pune who has issued "No Objection Certificate" not only in this case but in many other cases facilitating illegal use of the forest land for private gains and Mr. Aniruddha P. Deshpande, Developer, who entered into various Development Agreements for purchase and use of the Reserve Forest for construction of buildings are prosecuted. iv) Mr. Khadse who is presently under suspension should not be reinstated without obtaining permission of this Hon'ble Court; v) the Chairman, Central Empowered Committee may be authorized to constitute a multi disciplinary "Special Investigation Team" to examine the details of all the Reserve Forest under the administrative control of the Revenue Department in Pune and which have been allotted/allowed to be used in the past without obtaining approval under the FC Act.

All such allotment/uses should be treated as null and void and the Government of Maharashtra should In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra be directed to cancel all such orders. State functionaries/ officers who are found to be responsible for allotment/use of the forest land in all such cases, should be prosecuted for criminal breach of trust; and vi) the Chief Secretary, Government of Maharashtra should be directed to ensure immediate compliance of this Hon'ble Court's order dated 22. 9. 2006 in IA No. 1483 regarding transfer of forest land in charge of the Revenue Department to the Forest Department. Till the entire exercise is completed, he should be directed to file fortnightly Action Taken Report before the Hon'ble Court as well as the CEC. " 2. 28 Subsequent reports have been filed by the CEC on 1st November 2010 and 14th August 2013. 2. 29 I. A. Nos.

3044-45 of 2011 are filed by one Greenfield Cooperative Housing Society ("GCHS" for short) praying for impleadment in the matter and for quashing of the order dated 29th September 2008 by which the Divisional Commissioner, Pune had cancelled the permission to sell by virtue of which the GCHS had purchased the land from the original leaseholder. 2. 30 I. A. No. 254946 of 2023 for directions has been filed by RRCHS contending that the Gazette Notification dated 9th March 1944 did not show the subject land as the Forest Land and, therefore, prayed for disposal of the present proceedings in view of the said Gazette Notification. 2. 31 I. A. No. 39711 of 2024 has been filed by the State to place on record the original Gazette Notification dated 9th March 1944. It was contended by the State that the Gazette Notification dated 9th March 1944 placed by RRCHS was a fabricated document. 2.

32 This Court, therefore, vide order dated 9th May 2024, directed enquiry to be conducted by the Additional Director General of State CID, Pune. The Additional Director General of State CID, Pune conducted an enquiry and submitted his report on 16th August 2024 pointing out therein that the Gazette Notification dated 9th March 1944 placed by the RRCHS was a forged one and not genuine one. 2. 33 That is how the present proceedings have reached this stage. 1398 III. SUBMISSIONS 3. We have heard Shri K. Parameshwar, learned Senior Counsel (Amicus Curiae) ably assisted by Mr. M. V. Mukunda, Ms. Kanti, Ms. Raji Gururaj and Mr. Shreenivas Patil, learned counsel. We have also heard Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the RRCHS and Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the GCHS and Shri Aniruddha Joshi, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 4. Shri K.

Parameshwar submitted that the allotment of the Forest Land to the 'Chavan Family' was in flagrant breach of the orders of this Court and the provisions of the 1980 FC Act. He submits that though the record would clearly reveal that the subject land was recorded as a Forest Land, the land was allotted to the 'Chavan Family' in flagrant violation of the law. He submits that the record would reveal that the 'Chavan Family' was only a front, while, in fact, the allotment was made by the State Government in favour of a Builder. He submits that the record would reveal that much prior to 1998 when the land was actually allotted in favour of the 'Chavan Family', the 'Chavan Family' had already entered into a deal with Mr. Aniruddha P. Deshpande, the Chief Promoter of RRCHS. 5.

The learned Amicus submits that in the present case it would clearly reveal that the then Revenue Minister and the then Divisional Commissioner of Pune had acted in total breach of the doctrine of public trust and misused their power to aid the illegal activities of the Builder. The learned Amicus further submits that, considering for a moment that the allotment of the subject land in favour of the 'Chavan Family' was legal, it is clear that the subsequent allocation thereof in favour of RRCHS was totally in contravention of the conditions on which the land was allotted to the 'Chavan Family'. He further submits that the record would reveal that the subject land was in fact used for the purposes of plantation. 6. The learned Amicus, therefore, would submit that this Court should accept the report of the CEC and set aside the allotment in favour of the 'Chavan Family'. 7.

Shri Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the subject land was not used as a Forest Land for a long period. It is submitted that the land in question was allotted to the 'Chavan In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra Family' in lieu of compensation for acquisition of their land. It is submitted that the subject land lost its character as a Forest Land on account of non-use of it for a long time for the said purpose. It is therefore submitted that in view of the doctrine of desuetude, the subject land no longer remained a Forest Land and, therefore, the allotment of the subject land in favour of the 'Chavan Family' was totally valid in law. In this respect, he relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Municipal Corporation for City of Pune and another v. Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. and others1 8.

The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the RRCHS is the bona fide purchaser of the subject land from the 'Chavan Family'. It is submitted that the records viz. , the revenue records as well as the Final Regional Plan of Pune Region would show that the land in question was shown in a Public/Semi Public Zone which could be used for residential purposes. It is submitted that the Final Regional Plan of Pune Region was published in accordance with the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, which is a complete code in itself. It is submitted that since the subject land was not shown in a green zone, the RRCHS was the bona fide purchaser and, therefore, it cannot be penalized for purchasing the said land. 9.

An alternative submission made by the learned Senior Counsel is that, as held by this Court in In Re: "Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra2", the RRCHS should be allotted an alternate piece of land inasmuch as the land allotted to the 'Chavan Family' was in lieu of their land acquired by the Government. 10. Shri K. Parameshwar, learned Amicus, in rejoinder, submitted that the doctrine of desuetude would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. He relied on the following judgments of this Court in this regard: (i) State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Shamrao Puranik and Others3; 1 1995 INSC 181 : (1995) 3 SCC 434 2 I. A. No. 2771-2772 of 2009 etc. dated 9th September 2024 3 1982 INSC 78 : (1982) 3 SCC 519 1400 (ii) Cantonment Board, MHOW and Another v. M. P. State Road Transport Corpn. 4; and (iii) Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited v. Union of India and Others5 IV. ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION 11.

In the background of these submissions, the following points arise for consideration: a. As to whether the subject land is a Forest Land; b. As to whether the Divisional Commissioner was justified in recommending the allotment of subject land in favour of the 'Chavan Family' and as to whether the State Government was justified in accepting the said recommendation; c. As to whether the doctrine of desuetude would be applicable to the facts of the present case; d. As to whether the RRCHS could be said to be bona fide purchaser of the subject land; e. As to whether the RRCHS would be entitled to allotment of alternate piece of land in view of the order passed by this Court in In Re: "Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra"6; f. As to whether the doctrine of public trust would be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case. V. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS a. As to whether the subject land is a Forest Land. 12.

A perusal of the Gazette Notification dated 1st March 1879 would reveal that it declares the lands described in the Schedule annexed thereto to be Reserved Forest in the Poona Collectorate. The said 4 1997 INSC 401 : (1997) 9 SCC 450 5 2012 INSC 305 : (2012) 11 SCC 1 6 I. A. No. 2771-2772 of 2009 in WP(C) No. 202 of 1995 etc. dated 9th September 2024 In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra Notification has been issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 34 of the 1878 Act. A perusal of the Schedule thereto would reveal that the land in Village Kondhwa Budruk having survey No. 20, admeasuring an area of 32 Acres and 35 Gunthas (13. 27 ha) has been included in the said Schedule. Subsequently, by way of Notification issued on 5th January 1934, it was declared that out of the said area in Survey No. 20, an area admeasuring 3 Acres and 20 Gunthas would cease to be a Reserved Forest.

As such, after deforestation of 3 Acres and 20 Gunthas, the balance area of 29 Acres and 15 Gunthas (11. 89 ha) continued to be notified as a Reserved Forest. The said area of 29 Acres and 15 Gunthas was numbered as Survey No. 20-A, which was subsequently renumbered as Survey No. 21 Kondhwa Budruk. 13. A perusal of the records of the Forest Department would reveal that the said area continued to be shown as notified 'Reserved Forest'. 14. However, in the records maintained by the Revenue Department, the said area of Survey No. 21 Kondhwa Budruk has been recorded as "Government Grazing Ground". 15. It will be relevant to note that in order to clear this anomaly, the officers of the Forest Department have addressed number of letters to the Collector, Pune for rectification of the revenue records, which are as under: (i) Letter dated 18. 3. 1991 from Deputy Conservator of Forests, Pune to District Collector, Pune. (ii) Letter dated 5. 1.

1994 from the Deputy Conservator of Forests to the Tahsildar, Haveli. (iii) Letter dated 9. 7. 1998 from the Range Forest Office to the Tahsildar, Haveli (iv) Letter dated 29. 7. 1998 from the Deputy Conservator of Forests to the Collector, Pune (v) Letter dated 10. 9. 1998 from the Range Forest Officer to the Tahsildar, Haveli (vi) Letter dated September, 1998 from the Deputy Conservator of Forests to the Collector, Pune. (vii) Letter dated 11. 9. 1998 from the Deputy Conservator of Forests to the Collector, Pune. (viii) Letter dated 17. 12. 1998 from the Deputy Conservator of Forests to the Collector, Pune 16. Not only this, but the perusal of the communication dated 26th August 1994, addressed by the District Collector, Pune to the Executive Engineer (Estd. ), Maharashtra State Electricity Board ("MSEB" for short) would reveal that it is reserved as a "Forest Land". It is to be noted that the MSEB had sought allotment of this land for construction of High-Tension Sub-Station.

While refusing the said request, the Collector, Pune informed the MSEB vide letter dated 26th August 1994 as under: "In reference to your above letter please note that the land referred by you is reserved as "Forest Land" as per the Indian Forest Rules, 1897 vide circular No. 24F dt. 1st March, 1879 and amended in 1890. Hence same cannot be allotted to you. The application is therefore filed. " 17. It is further relevant to note that the Collector, Pune while forwarding the request of the 'Chavan Family' to the State Government vide communication dated 19th June 1991, referred to the said land as "Government Forest Land". However, noting that the 'Chavan Family' was in cultivation of the land admeasuring 3 Acres and 20 Gunthas, he recommended allotment of the said land to the 'Chavan Family'. He also recommended that the possession of the remaining land be handed over to the Forest Department. In the said letter, the Collector noted thus: "S. No. 20 is reserved for afforestation.

As per the Govt. notification No. AS/36/13//14032 dt 5. 01. 1934 (Pg 175) the rights for cultivation of the area admeasuring 3 Acres 20 Gunthas out of S. No. 20A have been allotted to Shri Chauhan family for which the Forest Dept has given their consent. The Forest Department has requested for the possession of the remaining land i. e. 29 Acres 15 Gunthas since reserved for Forest only. " 18. It could thus be seen that the though the Collector recorded that Survey No. 20 was reserved for afforestation, he recommended the allotment of the land admeasuring 3 Acres 20 Gunthas to 'Chavan Family'. While doing so, he recorded "No Objection" of the Forest Department. We will be referring to the said aspect subsequently In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra inasmuch as the said "No Objection given by one of the Forest Officers, was subsequently cancelled by the Forest Authorities. 19.

Surprisingly, the Divisional Commissioner vide his communication dated 30th November 1994, addressed to the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, noticing the stand taken by the Collector, Pune, recommended the entire land be allotted to the 'Chavan Family'. It is further to be noted that in the said communication, the Divisional Commissioner also specifically recorded that the 'Chavan Family' was in illegal possession of the land after 1969. 20. After the 1980 FC Act came into effect, no Forest Land could have been de-reserved without the permission of the Central Government. It is to be noted that though the reliance is placed by the RRCHS on the Gazette Notification dated 9th March 1944 to contend that the said subject land was de-reserved, on an enquiry conducted by the Additional Superintendent of Police State CID under the orders of this Court, the said Gazette Notification is found to be fabricated. 21.

It would thus be amply clear from the record that the said land was notified as early as in 1879 as Reserved Forest and which reservation continues to be so till date. b. As to whether the Divisional Commissioner was justified in recommending the allotment of subject land in favour of the 'Chavan Family' and as to whether the State Government was justified in accepting the said recommendation. 22. Having held that the subject land is a reserved Forest Land, the next question that would be required to be considered is as to whether the said land could have been allotted to the 'Chavan Family'. 23. It will be relevant to refer to Section 2 of the 1980 FC Act (as it originally exists, without amendment), which reads thus: "2. Restriction on the de-reservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose.

-- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force in a State, no State Government or other authority shall make, except with the prior approval of the Central Government, any order directing-- (i) that any reserved forest (within the meaning of the expression "reserved forest" in any law for the time 1404 being in force in that State) or any portion thereof, shall cease to be reserved; (ii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for any non-forest purpose; (iii) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organization not owned, managed or controlled by Government. (iv) that any forest land or any portion thereof may be cleared of trees which have grown naturally in that land or portion, for the purpose of using it for reafforestation]. Explanation.

--For the purposes of this section "non- forest purpose" means the breaking up or clearing of any forest land or portion thereof for-- (a) the cultivation of tea, coffee, spices, rubber, palms, oil- bearing plants, horticulture crops or medicinal plants; (b) any purpose other than reafforestation, but does not include any work relating to or ancillary to conservation, development and management of forests and wildlife, namely, the establishment of check-posts, fire lines, wireless communications and Construction of fencing, bridges and culverts, dams, waterholes, trench marks, boundary marks, pipelines or other like purposes. " 24.

It would thus be clear that after the 1980 FC Act was brought into effect, no State Government or any other authority, unless there is prior approval by the Central Government, could have directed any Reserved Forest or any portion thereof to cease to be under the status of "reserved" or any forest land or any portion thereof to be used for any non-forest purposes. Nor could it have assigned any forest land or any portion thereof, by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or any other organization. 25. Reliance is placed by the RRCHS on the judgment of this Court in the case of State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi and Others7. The legal 7 1985 INSC 126 : (1985) 3 SCC 643 In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra opinion given by the Deputy Secretary, Law and Judiciary Department, Government of Maharashtra also relies on the said judgment. 26.

No doubt that in the case of Banshi Ram Modi (supra), this Court held that if an area had already been dug up and mining operations were carried on prior to coming into force of the 1980 FC Act, the State Government, for continuing the said lease for the purposes of mining, shall not need prior approval of the Central Government. It has been held that though it would be necessary to seek prior approval of the Central Government for starting mining operations on a virgin area, it would not be necessary to seek such approval for the purposes of carrying out mining operations in a forest area which is broken up or cleared before the commencement of the 1980 FC Act. 27. We find that even on facts, the said judgment would not be applicable. There is no order permitting the subject land to be used for non-forest purposes by any of the competent authorities.

A reliance is sought to be placed on the letter issued by the Tehsildar, Taluka Haveli dated 13th May 1968, thereby informing the 'Chavan Family' about its decision to lease the subject land on "Eksali" basis for the year 1968-69. However, it is to be noted that the said lease was only for a period of one year. It is further to be noted that while accepting the said yearly lease, the 'Chavan Family' has given an undertaking that they will hand over the vacant and peaceful possession on 15. 12. 1967 (sic) i. e. prior to 1980. 28. In any case, nothing is placed on record to show that the land was permitted to be used by the State for any non-forest purposes prior to 1980.

In any event, since the lease deed was valid only for one year, after the 1980 FC Act came into effect, in view of the restrictions imposed in clause (iii) of Section 2 of the 1980 FC Act, the forest land could not have been assigned either by way of lease or any other mode to any private person unless there was prior approval of the Central Government. 29. In the case of Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat and Others8, this Court while distinguishing the judgment in the case of Banshi Ram Modi (supra) observed thus: 8 1986 INSC 267 : (1987) 1 SCC 213 1406 "15. The rules dealt with a situation prior to the coming into operation of 1980 Act. The "1980 Act" was an Act in recognition of the awareness that deforestation and ecological imbalances as a result of deforestation have become social menaces and further deforestation and ecological imbalances should be prevented. That was the primary purpose writ large in the Act of 1980.

Therefore the concept that power coupled with the duty enjoined upon the respondents to renew the lease stands eroded by the mandate of the legislation as manifest in 1980 Act in the facts and circumstances of these cases. The primary duty was to the community and that duty took precedence, in our opinion, in these cases. The obligation to the society must predominate over the obligation to the individuals. *** *** *** 18. The aforesaid observations have been set out in detail in order to understand the true ratio of the said decision in the background of the facts of that case. It is true that this Court held that if the permission had been granted before the coming into operation of the 1980 Act and the forest land has been broken up or cleared, clause (ii) of Section 2 of 1980 Act would not apply in such a case. But that decision was rendered in the background of the facts of that case. The ratio of any decision must be understood in the background of the facts of that case.

It has been said long time ago that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. (See Lord Halsbury in Quinn v. Leathem) [(1901) AC 495] . But in view of the mandate of Article 141 that the ratio of the decision of this Court is a law of the land, Shri Gobind Das submitted that the ratio of a decision must be found out from finding out if the converse was not correct. But this Court, however, was cautious in expressing the reasons for the said decision in State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi [(1985) 3 SCC 643]. This Court observed in that decision that the result of taking the contrary view would be (SCC p. 648, para 10) that while the digging for purposes of winning mica can go In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra on, the lessee would be deprived of collecting felspar or quartz which he may come across while he is carrying on mining operations for winning mica.

That would lead to an unreasonable result which would not in any way subserve the object of the Act. There was an existing lease where mining operation was being carried on and what was due by incorporation of a new term was that while mining operations were being carried on some other minerals were available, he was giving right to collect those. The new lease only permitted utilisation or collection of the said other minerals. 19. In the instant appeals the situation is entirely different. The appellants are asking for a renewal of the quarry leases. It will lead to further deforestation or at least it will not help reclaiming back the areas where deforestations have taken place. In that view of the matter, in the facts and circumstances of the case, in our opinion, the ratio of the said decision cannot be made applicable to support the appellants' demands in these cases because the facts are entirely different here.

The primary purpose of the Act which must subserve the interpretation in order to implement the Act is to prevent further deforestation. The Central Government has not granted approval. If the State Government is of the opinion that it is not a case where the State Government should seek approval of the Central Government, the State Government cannot apparently seek such approval in a matter in respect of which, in our opinion, it has come to the conclusion that no renewal should be granted. " [Emphasis supplied] 30. It could thus be seen that this Court in unequivocal terms held that the obligation to society must predominate over the obligation to the individuals. This Court held that in the case of Banshi Ram Modi (supra), there was an existing lease where mining operations were being carried on and what was due by incorporation of a new term was that while mining operations were being carried on some other minerals were available, he was given right to collect those.

This 1408 Court observed that, however, in Ambica Quarry Works (supra), the situation is entirely different. The appellants therein were asking for a renewal of the quarry leases. It would lead to further deforestation or at least it will not help reclaiming back the areas where deforestations have taken place. The Court, therefore, observed thus: "20. In that view of the matter and the scheme of the Act, in our opinion, the respondents were right and the appellants were wrong. All interpretations must subserve and help implementation of the intention of the Act. This interpretation, in our opinion, will subserve the predominant purpose of the Act. " [Emphasis supplied] 31. It is thus clear that this Court in unequivocal terms held that taking into consideration the Scheme of the Act, all interpretations which subserve and help implementation of the intention of the Act i. e. the protection of the forests must be accepted. 32.

It would further be apposite to note that this Court in the present proceedings had an occasion to consider the judgments in the cases of Banshi Ram Modi (supra) and Ambica Quarry Works (supra). In the order dated 12th December 1996, this Court observed thus: "4. The Forest Conservation Act, 1980 was enacted with a view to check further deforestation which ultimately results in ecological imbalance; and therefore, the provisions made therein for the conservation of forests and for matters connected therewith, must apply to all forests irrespective of the nature of ownership or classification thereof. The word "forest" must be understood according to its dictionary meaning. This description covers all statutorily recognised forests, whether designated as reserved, protected or otherwise for the purpose of Section 2(i) of the Forest Conservation Act.

The term "forest land", occurring in Section 2, will not only include "forest" as understood in the dictionary sense, but also any area recorded as forest in the Government record irrespective of the ownership. This is how it has to be understood for the purpose of Section 2 of the Act. The provisions enacted in the Forest Conservation Act, In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra 1980 for the conservation of forests and the matters connected therewith must apply clearly to all forests so understood irrespective of the ownership or classification thereof. This aspect has been made abundantly clear in the decisions of this Court in Ambica Quarry Works v. State of Gujarat [(1987) 1 SCC 213] , Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U. P. [1989 Supp (1) SCC 504] and recently in the order dated 29-11-1996 (Supreme Court Monitoring Committee v. Mussoorie Dehradun Development Authority [ WP (C) No 749 of 1995 decided on 29-11-1996] ).

The earlier decision of this Court in State of Bihar v. Banshi Ram Modi [(1985) 3 SCC 643] has, therefore, to be understood in the light of these subsequent decisions. We consider it necessary to reiterate this settled position emerging from the decisions of this Court to dispel the doubt, if any, in the perception of any State Government or authority. This has become necessary also because of the stand taken on behalf of the State of Rajasthan, even at this late stage, relating to permissions granted for mining in such area which is clearly contrary to the decisions of this Court. It is reasonable to assume that any State Government which has failed to appreciate the correct position in law so far, will forthwith correct its stance and take the necessary remedial measures without any further delay. 5. We further direct as under: I. General 1.

In view of the meaning of the word "forest" in the Act, it is obvious that prior approval of the Central Government is required for any non-forest activity within the area of any "forest". In accordance with Section 2 of the Act, all on-going activity within any forest in any State throughout the country, without the prior approval of the Central Government, must cease forthwith. It is, therefore, clear that the running of saw mills of any kind including veneer or plywood mills, and 1410 mining of any mineral are non-forest purposes and are, therefore, not permissible without prior approval of the Central Government. Accordingly, any such activity is prima facie violation of the provisions of the Forest Conservation Act, 1980. Every State Government must promptly ensure total cessation of all such activities forthwith. " [Emphasis supplied] 33.

A perusal of the aforesaid observation of this Court in the present proceedings would reveal that this Court after considering the judgment in Banshi Ram Modi (supra) has in unequivocal terms held that in accordance with Section 2 of the Act, all on-going activity within any forest in any State throughout the country, without the prior approval of the Central Government, must be ceased immediately. It can thus clearly be seen that this Court has in unequivocal terms overruled what was held in Banshi Ram Modi (supra). 34. It is thus amply clear that for permitting any non-forest activity within the area of any "forest", it was necessary to have prior approval of the Central Government. It has unequivocally been directed that all on-going activity within any forest in any State throughout the country, without the prior approval of the Central Government, must cease forthwith.

This Court specifically directed that running of saw mills of any kind including veneer or plywood mills, and mining of any mineral are non-forest purposes and they are not permissible without prior approval of the Central Government. 35. It is further to be noted that this court in the case of Nature Lovers Movement v. State of Kerala9has observed thus: "52. In the result, the appeal is disposed of in the following terms: (1) .........................................................

(2) After the enforcement of the 1980 Act, neither the State Government nor any other authority can make an order or issue 9 2009 INSC 371 : (2009) 5 SCC 373 In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra direction for dereservation of reserved forest or any portion thereof or permit use of any forest land or any portion thereof for any non-forest purpose or assign any forest land or any portion thereof by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or organisation not owned, managed or controlled by the Government except after obtaining prior approval of the Central Government. (3) Conclusion D recorded by the High Court in para 103 of the impugned judgment is legally unsustainable and is set aside.

(4) As and when the State Government decides to assign 10,000 ha of forest land to unauthorised occupants/encroachers, it shall do so only after obtaining prior approval of the Central Government and the latter shall take appropriate decision keeping in view the object of the 1980 Act and the guidelines framed for regularisation of encroachments on forest land. " [Emphasis supplied] 36. The legal position, therefore, has been clarified by this Court in the case of Nature Lovers Movement (supra) after considering the earlier judgments reiterating the position that neither the State Government nor any other authority can make an order or issue a direction for de-reservation of reserved forest or any portion thereof or permit use of any forest land or any portion thereof for any non-forest purpose.

Neither is it permissible to assign any forest land or any portion thereof by way of lease or otherwise to any private person or to any authority, corporation, agency or organization not owned, managed or controlled by the Government except after obtaining prior approval of the Central Government. 37. It is further to be noted that in the present case, the opinion given by the Deputy Secretary to the Government, Law and Judiciary Department was on 27th July 1998. The order approving allotment of 1412 land in favour of the 'Chavan Family' was issued by the Government of Maharashtra on 4th August 1998 and the order of allotment by the Collector was passed on 28th August 1998. It is thus clear that all these events have taken place well after the directions were issued by this Court on 12th December 1996 in the present proceedings. 38.

It is thus clear that the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra had totally erred in relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of Banshi Ram Modi (supra) by ignoring the observations made by this Court in the case of Ambica Quarry Works (supra) and specific directions issued by this Court in the present proceedings. For that very said reason, the decision of the State Government of allotting the land and implementing the same by the Collector is not at all sustainable in law. In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation in holding that the allotment of the land in favour of the 'Chavan Family' vide orders dated 4th August 1998 and 28th August 1998 is not sustainable in law. c. As to whether the doctrine of desuetude would be applicable to the facts of the present case. 39. An argument is sought to be raised on behalf of the RRCHS that the doctrine of desuetude would be applicable to the facts of the present case.

Let us test the correctness of the said argument. 40. Reliance in this respect is sought to be placed on behalf of the RRCHS on the judgment of this Court in the case of Bharat Forge Co. Ltd. (supra). In the said case, the liability of the respondents therein to pay octroi to the Municipal Corporation was under consideration. It was sought to be argued that since the 1918 Notifications had not been implemented, they stood repealed 'quasily' by the time new Octroi Rules came to be framed in 1963 and, in fact, they were applied to realize octroi from the respondents. In this background, this Court observed thus: "34. Though in India the doctrine of desuetude does not appear to have been used so far to hold that any statute has stood repealed because of this process, we find no objection in principle to apply this doctrine to our statutes as well.

This is for the reason that a citizen should know whether, despite a statute having been in disuse for long duration and instead a contrary practice being in use, he In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra is still required to act as per the "dead letter". We would think it would advance the cause of justice to accept the application of doctrine of desuetude in our country also. Our soil is ready to accept this principle; indeed, there is need for its implantation, because persons residing in free India, who have assured fundamental rights including what has been stated in Article 21, must be protected from their being, say, prosecuted and punished for violation of a law which has become "dead letter". A new path is, therefore, required to be laid and trodden. 35.

In written submissions filed on behalf of respondents, it has been stated that the theory of desuetude can have no application to the facts of the present case, since the challenge by the respondents is to the levy and calculation under the 1963 Schedule, and not to the rates enforced since 1918. This submission has been characterised as "most important". As to this we would observe that if Notification of 1818 were to prevail despite 1918 Notifications, the fact that some changes were made in the Schedule in 1963 has no legal bearing on the question under examination. The theory of desuetude has been pressed into service by the appellant only to take care of relevant 1918 Notifications. If those notifications can be said to stand eclipsed, the fact that changes were made in the rates etc. in 1963 cannot stand in the way of application of the theory of desuetude. " 41.

It could thus be seen that the Court observed that the doctrine of desuetude would apply to our statutes as well for the reason that a citizen should know whether, despite a statute having been in disuse for long duration and instead a contrary practice being in use, he is still required to act as per the "dead letter". It has been observed that it would advance the cause of justice to accept the application of doctrine of desuetude in our country as well. The Court observed that in view of the fundamental rights enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India, a citizen must be protected from being prosecuted and punished for violation of a law which has become "dead letter". 42. However, it is clear from the aforesaid observations that for applicability of the doctrine of desuetude, the statute must not only 1414 be required to be in disuse for long duration but instead a contrary practice must also be prevalent. 43.

We fail to understand as to how the said doctrine of desuetude would be applicable in the facts of the present case. 44. It is sought to be contended on behalf of the RRCHS that though the subject land was shown as Reserved Forest Land, as far back as in 1879, it was not used as a Forest Land for a long period and therefore it ceased to be Reserved Forest Land. We fail to appreciate such a submission. The subject land has continuously been recorded as 'Reserved Forest' in the Forest Records. Not only that, as we have already reproduced hereinabove, the Forest Authorities through a number of communications had requested the Revenue Authorities to correct the revenue entries and transfer the land to the Forest Department. In any case, this Court in the case of Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited (supra) has correctly laid down the legal position as under: "201.

From the above, the essentials of the doctrine of desuetude may be summarised as follows: (i) The doctrine of desuetude denotes a principle of quasi-repeal but this doctrine is ordinarily seen with disfavour. (ii) Although the doctrine of desuetude has been made applicable in India on few occasions but for its applicability, two factors, namely, (i) that the statute or legislation has not been in operation for a very considerable period, and (ii) the contrary practice has been followed over a period of time must be clearly satisfied. Both ingredients are essential and want of any one of them would not attract the doctrine of desuetude. In other words, a mere neglect of a statute or legislation over a period of time is not sufficient but it must be firmly established that not only the statute or legislation was completely neglected but also the practice contrary to such statute or legislation has been followed for a considerably long period.

" [Emphasis supplied] In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra 45. It could thus be seen that this Court has held that the doctrine of desuetude is ordinarily seen with disfavour. It has also been held that although this doctrine has been made applicable in India on a few occasions, however, for its applicability, two factors are necessary, namely, (i) that the statute or legislation has not been in operation for a very considerable period, and (ii) the contrary practice has been followed over a period of time. It has been held that, not one but, both the conditions must be available to attract the applicability of the said doctrine of desuetude. 46. In the present case, the legislative history would clearly show that, right from 1878, when the 1878 Act was enacted, under Section 34 of the said Act, the law with regard to protection and conservation of forest has been consistently evolving more and more in favour of protection of forests. 47.

We do not find any substance in the argument that the Notification dated 1st March 1879 issued under Section 34 of the 1878 Act has been put to disuse for a long time. In any case, nothing has been brought on record to show that a practice contrary to the provisions of the said Act was being applied. In that view of the matter, such an argument has to be heard only to be rejected. d. As to whether the RRCHS could be said to be a bona fide purchaser of the subject land. 48. It is sought to be urged on behalf of the RRCHS that they are the bona fide purchaser of the subject land in question. It is submitted on behalf of the RRCHS that the land in question was reflected as revenue land. It is submitted that the Final Regional Plan of Pune Region, which has statutory force, had shown the subject land as municipal land. It is further submitted that even prior to that in the Pune Regional Plan implemented on 17th May 1976, the land in question was included in the agricultural zone.

As such, by no stretch of imagination, the RRCHS could have known that the subject land was Forest Land and not Revenue Land. It is further stated that even the revenue record pertaining to the subject land had shown the possession of the 'Chavan Family' over the said land. It is, therefore, submitted that the RRCHS, which is a bona fide purchaser of the land in question, could not be faulted with and penalized for no fault of theirs. 1416 49. As already stated herein above, the subject land was allotted to the 'Chavan Family' by the Tehsildar, Haveli on 13th May 1968 on Eksali (yearly) lease for the year 1968-69. Not only that, the 'Chavan Family' had given an undertaking to the Mamlatdar, Haveli to surrender the said land prior to completion of one year. The 'Chavan Family' had further given an undertaking that the said land would not be put to any other use except for the agricultural purposes.

It is further pertinent to note that after the grant of lease for one year, there has been no renewal of the said lease, although the names of the 'Chavan Family' do appear in the 7/12 extracts of revenue records. 50. This Court in the case of Suraj Bhan and others v. Financial Commissioner and Others10 has held as follows: "9. ..... It is well settled that an entry in revenue records does not confer title on a person whose name appears in record-of-rights. It is settled law that entries in the revenue records or jamabandi have only "fiscal purpose" i. e. payment of land revenue, and no ownership is conferred on the basis of such entries. So far as title to the property is concerned, it can only be decided by a competent civil court (vide Jattu Ram v. Hakam Singh [(1993) 4 SCC 403 : AIR 1994 SC 1653] ). As already noted earlier, civil proceedings in regard to genuineness of will are pending with the High Court of Delhi.

In the circumstances, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court in the writ petition. " 51. Recently, this Court in the case of P. Kishor Kumar v. Vittal K. Patkar11has also observed thus: "13. .... mutation in revenue records neither creates nor extinguishes title, nor does it have any presumptive value on title. All it does is entitle the person in whose favour mutation is done to pay the land revenue in question. " 52. It is well-settled law that the entries in the revenue record do not confer a title to the property. 10 2007 INSC 424 : (2007) 6 SCC 186 11 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1483 In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra 53. It would further appear from the record that after the lease was not renewed in 1969, for a period of about 20 years, the members of the 'Chavan Family' kept silent. It appears that only in the year 1988, they started moving the authorities for allotment of land in lieu of compensation.

However, much prior to the actual allotment of land in their favour, they had already entered into transactions with the Builders. A perusal of the record would reveal that one Mr. Rajesh Shah had filed a civil suit, being Civil Suit No. 1023 of 1998 for permanent injunction against Mr. Raghunath Shripati Chavan and others. In the said suit, Mr. Aniruddha P. Deshpande, Chief Promoter of the RRCHS, was also made a party respondent. The other members of the 'Chavan Family' were also made respondents. In the said suit, Mr. Rajesh Shah had claimed that he had purchased 75% share of the subject land from some of the co-owners of the said land. The said co-owners had executed the Development Agreement dated 16th February 1995 and had granted development rights as well as executed Power of Attorney to the plaintiff along with one Mr. Yogesh Kariya. In the said proceedings, Mr. Aniruddha P.

Deshpande, Chief Promoter of the RRCHS had filed an affidavit dated 28th August 1998, wherein it was stated that the owners/ holders of the said land had executed the Development Agreement dated 25th July 1992 and thereafter the Supplementary Agreement dated 23rd June 1995 in his favour and that the possession of the said property to the extent of their share had been delivered to him. He had also placed on record the copies of the General Power of Attorney dated 22nd June 1995 and 12th February 1996 executed by one Mr. Kesu Hari Chavan and others in his favour. 54. It will be relevant to reproduce Para 2 of the Affidavit dated 28th August 1998 filed by Mr. Aniruddha P. Deshpande, Chief Promoter, RRCHS in Civil Suit No. 1023 of 1998, which reads thus: "2. It is submitted that the owners/holders of the suit property Shri Abu G. Chavan, Sarubai S. Chavan, Pandurang Bhau Chavan, Kesu Hari Chavan, Dattatraya R.

Chavan, Narayan Nana Chavan, Rakhmabai Vithal Chavan and others have executed Development agreement 25/7/92 and thereafter supplementary agreement dated 23/6/95 in favour of this applicant. The said owners have also delivered the possession of the suit property to the extent of their share to this applicant. 1418 As such this applicant is in possession of the suit property to the extent of the undivided share of the above owners. In view of the said fact this applicant is necessary party to the suit. It is submitted that if any order is passed in the suit the same may seriously affect the right of this applicant and the applicant may suffer irreparable loss and hardship. The orders passed in the suit may also lead to multiplicity of litigation as such it is necessary that this third party may be added as the Defendant to the suit.

If this applicant is added as the necessary party to the suit no hardship or injustice will be caused either to the plaintiff or the Defendant, on the contrary this applicant may suffer irreparable loss and hardship, hence in the interest of justice this applicant may please be added as the necessary party to the suit. The details of this applicant is as under: SHRI ANIRUDDH P. DESHPANDE AGE : 37 YEARS, OCC : BUSINESS RESIDING AT : 66/2, APEKSHA, OPPOSITE LAW COLLEGE, PUNE 411 004. " 55. It is further to be noted that another suit being Civil Suit No. 1364 of 1998 was filed by one Mr. Raju Shivaji Bhonsale and another challenging the allotment of the subject land to the 'Chavan Family'. In the said suit also, Mr. Aniruddha P. Deshpande, Chief Promoter of the RRCHS was made a party respondent. Mr. Aniruddha P. Deshpande had also filed an affidavit dated 14th February 2005 in the said suit inter alia stating therein that during 1995 Mr.

Chavan and others had granted the Development Rights in his favour. 56. It is further to be noted that the members of the 'Chavan Family' had entered into Development Agreement with Mr. Aniruddha P. Deshpande on 18th August 1998. 57. It is further to be noted that an order approving the allotment of the land in favour of the 'Chavan Family' was passed by the Government vide order dated 4th August 1998, whereas the actual allotment of land by the Collector is by order dated 28th August 1998. 58. It is relevant to note that in the civil suit filed by Mr. Rajesh Shah, a Compromise Pursis dated 29th August 1998 was filed by the members In Re: Construction of Multi Storeyed Buildings in Forest Land Maharashtra of the 'Chavan Family', Mr. Aniruddha P. Deshpande and Mr. Rajesh Shah, which reads thus: "i) the members of the Chavan family (allottees of the said land) and Mr. Aniruddha P.

Deshpande (Chief Promoter of the Richie Rich Co-operative Housing Society) admit, agree and confirm that (a) the Development Agreement dated 16. 2. 1995 pertaining to the said land has been executed by the three members of the Chavan family in favour of Mr. Rajesh Shah and Mr. Yogesh Kariya, and (b) the possession of the said property was delivered to Mr. Rajesh Shah and Yogesh Shah to the extent of shares of owners executing the agreement. ii) the Agreement dated 25. 7. 1992 and the Supplementary Agreement dated 23. 6. 1995 and Agreement dated 16. 2. 1995 executed by the other owners in favour of Mr. Aniruddha P. Deshpande is also valid and subsisting and that the possession of the said property has been given to him to the extent of shares of the owners executing the said agreement. iii) the said land is exclusively in the joint possession of Mr. Rajesh Shah, Mr. Yogesh Kariya, Raghunath Chavan and Aniruddha P. Deshpande. iv) an Agreement has been reached between Mr.

Rajesh Shah and Aniruddha P.