HC agrees land is forest, many set to lose houses in Mumbai

The Maharashtra Government had issued showcause notices in 1956-57 under the Indian Forests Act of 1927 to original owners of these lands, asking why the lands should not be treated as private forests and be acquired for conservation.

Under the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) of Land Act, 1975, such land classified as private forest can be acquired by the Forest Department.

However, the Government did not take any step to acquire them till 2006.

When it tried to, a bunch of 19 petitions, filed by some leading construction groups in the city, including Runwal Builders, Nanabhai builders and Bairamji Jeejibhoy, challenged the changes in the revenue records marking these lands as “private forests”.

However, a division bench of Chief Justices Swatanter Kumar and Justice S C Dharmadhikari on Monday dismissed their argument that some of the lands are already developed, saying “merely because they have invested crores of rupees and developed these lands does not mean the state cannot proceed by treating them as private forests”.

The MPFA Act had been introduced in 1975 to acquire private forests. But as no actual steps were taken, lands changed hands, and in many cases, BMC (then Bombay Municipal Corporation) even sanctioned construction.

But in 2005, the Bombay Environmental Action Group filed a PIL, seeking implementation of the MPFA and acquisition of land by the Forest Department. The High Court directed the Government to take due steps and revenue authorities started changing land records, marking these lands as private forests.

The court also granted interim liberty for petitioners to continue their activities, which was challenged by the state Government in the Supreme Court. The SC referred the case back to the HC last year, requesting it to dispose of the matter in four months.

The petitioners’ lawyer Fali Nariman contended that notices were given way back in 1956-57 and they can’t be said to be in operation after all these years.

However, Advocate General Ravi Kadam and government pleader Nitin Deshpande cited the MPFA, which says once a notice is issued under the Indian Forests Act, the land is vested in the Government.

The High Court accepted this view and discounted the fact that later municipal authorities had sanctioned construction in these areas. “Such approvals won’t bind the state or the Forest Department,” said the court.

In a warning to builders, Deshpande said that on the basis of this judgement, the Government can stop development on these lands and acquire them.