Supreme Court Quashes Maharashtra’s “Private Forest” Land Vesting: Reaffirms Rule of Judicial Discipline and Property Rights

The Supreme Court has quashed the State’s long-standing claims over privately owned lands wrongly classified as “private forests” under the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975 (MPFA). The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B. Varale sharply rebuked the Maharashtra government and the Bombay High Court for defying binding precedent and disregarding procedural safeguards. The bench declared that the High Court’s 2018 judgment upholding the State’s action “cannot be sustained,” emphasizing that judicial hierarchy and precedent under Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution must be respected as structural guarantees of the rule of law. Opening the 40-page verdict with a constitutional reflection, Justice Nath underscored that “judicial discipline is the ethic that turns hierarchy into harmony.” The judgment noted that the High Courts and subordinate courts are constitutionally bound to follow the law declared by the Supreme Court. Any “resistance or evasion” of binding precedent, the Court observed, “erodes predictability, multiplies litigation, and weakens faith in the rule of law.” The appeals arose from nearly 96 petitions challenging the State’s mutation of private lands as “forest” properties — effectively vesting them in the government without compensation. The origins trace back to notices allegedly issued in the 1960s under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, which the State later used to justify automatic vesting under Section 3 of the MPFA, 1975. Landowners — many of whom had held or purchased the lands decades later — argued that no notices were ever served, no hearings conducted, and no compensation paid. Despite this, in the early 2000s, revenue authorities annotated property records as “private forests” vested in the State, disrupting lawful ownership and development rights. The Supreme Court found that the Bombay High Court’s 2018 decision “revived positions that Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2014) 3 SCC 430 had already rejected.” In Godrej, the apex court had categorically ruled that mere issuance of a forest notice without proof of service and active follow-through could not vest land in the State. However, in Rohan Vijay Nahar, the same High Court judge who had authored the earlier Oberoi Constructions ruling (set aside in Godrej) dismissed the new batch of petitions — again upholding the State’s stand. The Supreme Court expressed concern over this “unfortunate departure from the discipline of stare decisis,” adding that such judicial reluctance “creates an appearance of pettiness inconsistent with constitutional detachment.” The Supreme Court held that a valid notice under Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act must be served, not merely issued. No final notification under Section 35(1) or possession under Section 5 of the MPFA was shown. Private possession had continued for decades, with no compensation or acquisition process. Mutation entries in revenue records were “ministerial” and could not create or extinguish title. Post-hoc justifications such as satellite images or ancient forest maps “do not inspire confidence.” The Court reiterated that expropriatory laws like the MPFA must be construed strictly, and property rights protected under Article 300-A of the Constitution cannot be taken away except by clear authority of law. “When a statute prescribes a manner of doing a thing, it must be done in that manner or not at all,” the Bench said. In strong words directed at the judiciary, the Bench noted that the High Court’s attempt to distinguish Godrej & Boyce on immaterial grounds amounted to evasion of binding precedent.“Judges do not sit to settle scores. The gavel is an instrument of reason, not a weapon of reprisal,” the judgment reminded, underscoring that fidelity to precedent is essential for maintaining “the confidence of litigants and the credibility of courts.” The Supreme Court allowed all 96 appeals, setting aside the Bombay High Court’s order dated 27.09.2018. The court quashed all mutation entries and declarations treating lands as private forests and directed corrections in revenue records to restore private ownership. The court granted liberty to the State to initiate fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with law and due process. Case Details Case Title: Rohan Vijay Nahar & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Case No.: Civil Appeal No(S). 5454 Of 2019 Date: 07/11/2025 Click Here To Read Order Read More: DGFT Clarifies on Redemption of Advance Authorisations Impacted by Erstwhile Rule 96(10) of CGST Rules

Supreme Court Quashes Maharashtra’s “Private Forest” Land Vesting: Reaffirms Rule of Judicial Discipline and Property Rights

Membership Required

GST Dept. Wrongly Classified Stock, Premises Insurance Policy as Motor Vehicle Insurance; ITC Can’t Be Denied: Gujarat HC

Customs Brokers Accused of Allowing Large-Scale Misuse of CHA Licences in Rs. 600-Crore Import Fraud: Delhi HC Refuses to Grant Pre-Deposit Waiver

Valuation-Linked Excise Dispute Must Go to Supreme Court: Gauhati HC Dismisses Dept’s Appeal Against Johnson Products

GST Dept. Wrongly Classified Stock, Premises Insurance Policy as Motor Vehicle Insurance; ITC Can’t Be Denied: Gujarat HC

Customs Brokers Accused of Allowing Large-Scale Misuse of CHA Licences in Rs. 600-Crore Import Fraud: Delhi HC Refuses to Grant Pre-Deposit Waiver

Valuation-Linked Excise Dispute Must Go to Supreme Court: Gauhati HC Dismisses Dept’s Appeal Against Johnson Products

Deposits Made During Investigation Must Be Counted Toward Pre-Deposit Under Customs Act: Delhi HC

GST Dept. Wrongly Classified Stock, Premises Insurance Policy as Motor Vehicle Insurance; ITC Can’t Be Denied: Gujarat HC

Customs Brokers Accused of Allowing Large-Scale Misuse of CHA Licences in Rs. 600-Crore Import Fraud: Delhi HC Refuses to Grant Pre-Deposit Waiver

Valuation-Linked Excise Dispute Must Go to Supreme Court: Gauhati HC Dismisses Dept’s Appeal Against Johnson Products

Deposits Made During Investigation Must Be Counted Toward Pre-Deposit Under Customs Act: Delhi HC

Notification For Rectifying ITC Orders U/S 16(4) Ignored by Appellate Authority: Calcutta HC Remands Back

Telangana Govt. Issues SOP On Prevention, Rectification Of Multiplicity Of Orders For Same Cause Of Action Under TGST Act, 2017

GSTN Issues Advisory on Mandatory Furnishing of Bank Account Details Under Rule 10A

GST Dept. To Consider Amended Business Address Before Passing GST Registration Cancellation Order: Delhi HC

SGST Tax Officer Can’t Be Suspended Merely For Submitting Late Report In Fake ITC Case: Allahabad HC

GST Officer Gave No Reasons Beyond Claim That Taxpayer ‘Did Not Reply’: Delhi HC Quashes Demand

SC Seeks Detailed Affidavit From Trader After GST Dept. Fails to Release Seized Areca Nuts Despite Prior Orders

Can I gift mutual funds to my wife? Know Taxability

GST Dept. Wrongly Classified Stock, Premises Insurance Policy as Motor Vehicle Insurance; ITC Can’t Be Denied: Gujarat HC

Customs Brokers Accused of Allowing Large-Scale Misuse of CHA Licences in Rs. 600-Crore Import Fraud: Delhi HC Refuses to Grant Pre-Deposit Waiver

Valuation-Linked Excise Dispute Must Go to Supreme Court: Gauhati HC Dismisses Dept’s Appeal Against Johnson Products