Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

51. In the light of the above consent terms, again an inquiry was held under section 6 of the Act. The Sub-Divisional Officer de novo considered the question and held that the land was not "private forest" as defined in section 2(f)(iii) of the Act and it did not vest in the State Government. He, inter alia, took into consideration the facts that the Corporation purchased the land by registered sale deed between the Corporation and Court Receiver of the High Court; the Corporation was not served with any notice under section 6 of the Act and the notice issued to the company was not binding upon the Corporation. Notice under section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act was never served on the Corporation, though it was served on the company; the land could not be said to be forest as defined in section 2 of the Act. It was also not private forest. The notice was thus ultra vires and unlawful.

The Apex Court proceeded to state that the question was essentially one of fact and since the High Court took into consideration material placed before it for the first time by the respondent-State, the appellant had no reasonable opportunity of traversing such material. It, therefore, set aside the order passed by this Court and remanded the matter to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal directing it to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.

56. Again, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal considered the question and by an order dated 4th December, 1992 came to the conclusion that the land bearing Survey No. 345-A could neither be said to be forest nor private forest. Referring to sections 34-A and 35 of the Indian Forest Act and relying on Janu Chandra Waghmare, the Tribunal held that the contention of the Government Pleader that the disputed land was covered by the definition "private forest" under section 2(f)(iii) was not well founded. It also held that the Corporation was holding the property as a rightful owner. Since no notice was issued to the Corporation under section 35(3) of the Indian Forests Act, it could not be deprived of ownership right over the land. It further observed that the land could not be said to be "forest" as defined in section 2(c-i) of the 1975 Act. Referring to various documents, the Tribunal concluded that it was established that Survey No. 345-A was not "a natural forest" on the appointed day and did not answer the requirements laid down in the first part of section 2(c-i) of the Act.

The State Act defines "forest" in section 2(c-i) thus:

"Forest" means a tract of land covered with trees (whether standing, felled, found or otherwise), shrubs, bushes, or woody vegetation, whether of natural growth or planted by human agency and existing or being maintained with or without human effort, or such tract of land on which such growth is likely to have an effect on the supply of timber, fuel, forest produce, or grazing facilities, or on climate, stream flow, protection of land from erosion, or other such matters and includes-

The Full Bench proceeded to state:

"30. Turning to the definition of "private forest" given in section 2(f), it will appear clear that even this definition consists of two parts; the first part indicating what the expression "means" according to the legislature and the second part indicating what the expression includes according to the legislature. In the first part "private forest" has been defined to mean any forest which is not the property of the Government while under the inclusive part six items or heads mentioned in sub-clauses (i) to (vi) have been included in the definition. The "meaning" part presents no difficulty and the question is about the inclusive part of the definition. The true impact of this inclusive part of the definition cannot be realised without bearing in mind the provisions of Chapter V of the Forest Act, 1927. It may be stated that the Indian Forest Act, 1927 deals with different types of forest, such as, (i) Reserved forests, (ii) Village forests, (iii) Protected forests and (vi) Forests which are not the property of Government; Chapter V deals with the fourth category of forest and contains sections 34-A, 35 and 38. Under section 34-A it has been provided that for the purposes of that Chapter "forest" includes any land containing trees and shrubs, pasture lands and any other land whatsoever which the State Government may, by notification declare to be a forest. Section 35(1) enables the State Government to issue a notification regulating or prohibiting certain acts, such as, breaking up or clearing of the land for cultivation, pasturing of cattle, firing or clearing of the vegetation, girdling, tapping or burning of any tree or the stripping off the bark or leaves from any trees, cutting, sawing, conversion and removal of trees and timber; or quarrying of stone or the burning of lime or charcoal, etc. when such regulation or prohibition appears necessary for any forest not belonging to Government, for the purpose of conservation of trees and forests, preservation and improvement of soil, improvement of grazing, maintenance of a water supply in springs, rivers and tanks, maintenance, increase and distribution of the supply of fodder, leaf manure, timber or fuel, maintenance of reservoirs or irrigation works, protection of roads, bridges, railways and other lines of communication and preservation of the public health, etc. Under sub-section (3) of section 35 it is provided that no notification under sub-clause (1) shall be issued until after a show cause notice to the owner of such forest has been issued and until his objections, if any are heard and considered by Government. Section 38 provides for protection of private forest at the request of the owners and states that upon a request in that behalf being made by the owners the State Government can apply the provisions of the Forest Act to such private forest by means of a notification. If sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of section 2(f) are read in the light of the aforesaid provisions of sections 34-A, 35 and 38 of the Forest Act, 1927, it will appear clear that these sub-clauses bring within the definition of private forest four types of land in respect of which action has been taken by the State Government under sections 34-A, 35(1), 35(3) & 38 of the Forest Act. Sub-clause (i) brings within the definition of "private forests" any land declared before the appointed day to be a forest under section 34-A of the Forest Act and sub-clause (ii) brings any forest in respect of which a notification under section 35(1) of the Forest Act has been issued immediately before the appointed day within the category of "private forest". Both the sections viz. 34-A and 35 of the Forest Act have been repealed with effect from 30th August, 1975 after the coming into force of the Acquisition Act and in view of such repeal no fresh declaration by issuing a notification under section 34-A or fresh issuance of a notification under section 35(1) is now possible. As regards action taken either under section 34-A or under section under section 35(1) prior to 30-8-1975 our attention was not drawn to any defective declaration or defective notification issued under either of these provisions. Moreover, it would be reasonable to assume that such prior declaration under section 34-A was in respect of such land as possessed the essential attributes of a forest. Prior action under section 35(1) must have been merely regulatory or prohibitory of certain acts specified in the section and that too in respect of "forest" inasmuch as the power to issue such regulations or prohibitions is confined to forests. No grievance can be made with regard to action taken by means of a notification under section 38 of the Forest Act in respect of land mentioned in sub-clause (iv), inasmuch as, such action is taken with a view to formation or conservation of forest over such land at the request of the owners of land. It is thus clear that sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iv) of section 2(f) deal with declared, adjudicated or admitted instances of forests. Sub-clause (iii) of section 2(f) no doubt seeks to cover land in respect of which merely a notice has been issued to the owner of a private forest under section 35(3) and his objections may have remained unheard till 30-8-1975 as section 35 has stood repealed on the coming into force of the Acquisition Act. Here also, as in the case of owners of land falling under sub-clause (iii) of section 2(c-i), his objections, if any, including his objection that his land cannot be styled as forest at all can be heard and disposed of under section 6 of the Acquisition Act, and this position was conceded by Counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra. Sub-clause (v) includes within the definition of private forest the interest of another person who along with Government is jointly interested in a forest, while sub-clause (vi) includes sites of dwelling houses constructed in such forest which are considered to be necessary for the convenient enjoyment or use of forest and lands appurtenant thereto. In our view, the artificiality involved, if any, in the definition of private forest in section 2(f) is indeed of a very minor nature and does not introduce anything over which the State Legislature has no competence. The contention of Mr. Singhvi and Mr. Paranjpe that under the artificial definitions even lands which cannot by any stretch of imagination be regarded as forest in its normal or natural connotation have been brought within that concept as well as their apprehension that lands which may be barren tracts where quarrying operations may be carried on may be included in the artificial definitions under the power of declaration conferred on the State without any hearing are misconceived. In the first place, the artificial parts of the two definitions of "forest" and "private forest" do not do anything of the kind as suggested and secondly under section 6 of the Act owners of such land which is sought to be declared as forest would have an opportunity of raising objections to the proposed declarations and of satisfying the Government that their lands are not and cannot be treated or declared as forests."