Ecolex Logo
Le portail au
droit de l'environnement
Résultats de la recherche » Jurisprudence

Maharashtra Land Development vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr.

Pays/Territoire
Inde
Type de cour
Nationale - cour supérieure
Date
Nov 11, 2010
Source
UNEP, InforMEA
Nom du tribunal
Supreme Court of India
Siège de la cour
New Delhi
Juge
Sharma, M.
Dave., A.R.
Langue
Anglais
Sujet
Ressources minérales, Forêts, Terre et sols
Mot clé
Exploitation minière Planification territoriale Propriété étrangère Régime foncier
Résumé
The land in question was part of an original Survey in village Dahisar, Maharashtra, measuring about 650 acres and was shown as "forest land" in the Revenue records. In 1947, out of 650 acres, around 365 acres was acquired for the purpose of creating a National Park at Borivli. Original Survey No. 345 was subsequently divided into three survey numbers, being Survey Nos. 345-A, 345-B and 345-C. On 30th August, 1975, the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 came into force under which allegedly land bearing Survey No. 345-A stood acquired and vested in the State Government and by an order dated 12th November, 1975, the Sub-Divisional Officer held the land to be "private forest" and also held that the land stood acquired and vested in the State of Maharashtra. When the question of handing over actual and physical possession of land bearing Survey No. 345-A came up, it was revealed that out of 209 acres of land of Survey No. 345-A, land admeasuring about 53 acres was in possession of the Maharashtra Land Development Corporation (the appellant herein), and 50 acres was in possession of K.N. Shaikh (appellant in Civil Appeal No. 2148 of 2004). A long series of orders and subsequent appeals, to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and the Bombay High Court has finally led the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court dated October 8, 2003, that the land bearing Survey No. 345-A situate at Dahisar is held to be "private forest" under the provisions of the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 and deemed to have vested in the State Government, which is challenged by the present appeal. The primary issue involved in this case is 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. In the context of this legislative scheme the definition of a `forest' as enunciated in Section 2 (c-i) (ii) of the Act specifically includes "land which is part of a forest or lies within it or was part of a forest or was lying within a forest on the 30th day of August, 1975". Subsequent to proceedings initiated under the Bombay Salsette Estate Abolition Act, 1951, the entire land bearing Survey No. 345-A was held to be a "forest" vide an order dated 24th December, 1964. This is further buttressed by the mutation entries till 1969-70 which described the land as a forest. Therefore, there is overwhelming documentary evidence and also contemporaneous evidence on record to prove and establish that the land in question, even in recent times was considered as forest land and also retained its character as such. Thus, in light of the legislative scheme of the Act, and the provisions discussed herein, the Court is of the opinion that the said portion of the land, measuring 53 acres will vest with the respondent-State as a `private forest'. In this context, the decision of the Government has been guided by the provisions in the Act, which seek to conserve and protect private forests in the State of Maharashtra that have been facing severe depletion and exploitation. Therefore, the Act, which provides for the vesting of private forests with the Government, does so in the general interests of the public in tune with principles of environmental protection and sustainable development. Therefore, the respondent-State was only acting in accordance with the principles envisaged in the Act. In Civil Appeal No. 2148 of 2004 , the supreme Court reiterates that the land in question remains, in essence, a forest and the mere purported presence of a rocky area therein cannot change its character. Observing that the appellant has based his claim on the basis of possession of land without any deed of conveyance or sale deed to support the same, the Court finds that the appeal is without merit and deserves to be dismissed.
Texte intégral
COU-156151.pdf
Site web
www.indiankanoon.org