The Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court’s 2018 judgment that had upheld revenue entries treating several privately-owned lands as “private forests” vested in the State under the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975, holding that the High Court had disregarded a binding precedent.
The bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale observed that ‘judiciary draws strength from discipline, not dominion’. Reiterating the constitutional mandate under Articles 141 and 144, the Supreme Court stated that the law declared by it binds every court in the country and that all civil and judicial authorities are duty-bound to act in aid of the Court.
“Judicial discipline is the ethic that turns hierarchy into harmony,” Justice Vikram Nath wrote, adding that courts must apply precedent as it stands, for “in that discipline lies the confidence of litigants and the credibility of courts.”
The dispute originated from proceedings under the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 (MPFA). Several landowners across Maharashtra discovered that their privately owned lands had been marked as “private forests” in government records and shown as vested in the State.
The State relied on Gazette notifications allegedly issued in the 1960s under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, claiming that such issuance was sufficient to transfer ownership to the government when the MPFA came into force in 1975. However, the landowners argued that these notices were never served on them, no proceedings were completed under Section 35(1), and possession had always remained with them.
In 2018, the Bombay High Court dismissed a group of writ petitions filed by affected landowners, holding that the mere existence of Section 35(3) notifications was enough to presume vesting. Aggrieved by that view, 96 landowners approached the Supreme Court.
The Court held that the High Court erred in disregarding the binding precedent of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 3 SCC 430, which had settled that vesting under Section 3(1) of the 1975 Act can occur only when a valid notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 is duly served on the landholder. Mutation entries, the Court said, are ministerial and cannot perfect acquisition or create title in the State.
The Court noted that the Bombay High Court had distinguished the ruling in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing, on the ground that the landowners in that case had obtained an earlier consent decree, long-standing sanctioned development, and that there existed an evidentiary vacuum regarding the service of notices and follow-through under the Indian Forest Act. On this basis, the High Court treated Godrej & Boyce as fact-specific and of limited precedential value to later purchasers.
Rejecting this distinction, the Supreme Court held that the High Court’s approach amounted to avoiding rather than applying a binding precedent. It observed that once a principle of law has been authoritatively settled by the Supreme Court, its applicability cannot be confined to the peculiar facts of a single case. The Court reiterated that judicial discipline requires uniform adherence to precedent to preserve coherence and consistency across the justice system.
Noting that possession had remained with private owners and that there was no evidence of lawful acquisition, the Supreme Court quashed all mutation entries and declarations treating the lands as private forests, directing consequential corrections in revenue records. The State has been granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with law.
Appearances
For Appellants: Mr. R. Chandrachud, AOR; Mr. Vineet Naik, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv.; Ms. Madhavi Divan, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Guru Krishnakumar, Sr. Adv.; Mr. C.U. Singh, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Atul Y. Chitale, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Aniruddha Joshi, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Vinay Navare, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Shreeyash Uday Lalit, Adv.; Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR; Mr. Shivaji M. Jadhav, AOR; Mr. Ishaan George, AOR; Ms. Mohini Priya, AOR; Mr. Ashwarya Sinha, AOR; Ms. Malvika Kapila, AOR; Mr. Rishi Kumar Singh Gautam, AOR; Mrs. B. Sunita Rao, AOR; Dr. (Mrs.) Vipin Gupta, AOR; Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR; Mr. Satyajeet Kumar, AOR; Mr. Mayank Kshirsagar, AOR; Ms. Jaikriti S. Jadeja, AOR; Mr. Pranaya Goyal, AOR; Ms. Rajkumari Banju, AOR; Mr. Rajat Sehgal, AOR; Mr. Aman Varma, AOR; Mr. Ravi Tyagi, AOR; Ms. Abha R. Sharma, AOR; Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR; Mr. Santosh Krishnan, AOR; Mr. Kush Chaturvedi, AOR; Mr. Kunal Cheema, AOR; Mr. R. P. Gupta, AOR; Mrs. Pragya Baghel, AOR; Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, AOR; Mr. Raj Singh Rana, AOR; Ms. Tatini Basu, AOR; M/s A.P. & J. Chambers, AOR; Mr. K. Krishna Kumar, AOR; Ms. Charu Sangwan, AOR; Ms. Tanya Srivastava, AOR; Mr. C. George Thomas, AOR, and other learned advocates.
For Respondents: Mr. Balbir Singh, Sr. Adv.; Mr. K. Parameshwar, Sr. Adv.; Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR; Mr. Ravindra Sadanand Chingale, AOR; Mr. Navneet R., AOR; Mr. T.V.S. Raghavendra Sreyas, AOR; Ms. Anagha S. Desai, AOR; Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv.; Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv.; Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv.; Mr. Naman Tandon, Adv.; Mr. Karan Sachdev, Adv.; Ms. Shivali Shah, Adv.; and other learned counsel.
