GODREJ & BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
LAWS(SC)-2014-1-67
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: BOMBAY)
Decided on January 30,2014

GODREJ AND BOYCE MFG. CO. LTD. Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

ROBINSON V. BARTON -ECCLES LOCAL BOARD [REFERRED TO]
R L ARORA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
BANARSI DEBI LUXMI NIWAS MOODY VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER DISTRICT IV CALCUTTA:INCOME TAX OFFICER DISTRICT IV CALCUTTA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. VISHNU PRASAD SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
KHUB CHAND VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
K RAMADAS SHENOY VS. CHIEF OFFICERS TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL UDIPI [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX U P VS. KUNDAN LAL BEHARI LAL [REFERRED TO]
JAGIR SINGH GOEL ROADWAYS VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
MANSARAM VS. S P PATHAK [REFERRED TO]
PRATIBHA COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX GUJARAT VS. BABABHAI PITAMBERDAS HUF [REFERRED TO]
PLEASANT STAY HOTEL PLEASANT STAY HOTEL PLEASANT STAY HOTEL STATE OF TAMIL NADU VS. PALANI HILLS CONSERVATION COUNCIL:PALANI HILLS CONSERVATION COUNCIL:PALANI HILLS CONSERVATION COUNCIL:PALANI HILLS CONSERVATION COUNCIL [REFERRED TO]
GANAPATHI NATIONAL MIDDLE SCHOOL VS. M DURAI KANNAN [REFERRED TO]
BLACK DIAMOND BEVERAGES VS. COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER CENTRAL SECTION ASSESSMENT WING CALCUTTA [REFERRED TO]
CHINTAMANI GAJANAN VELKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [OVERRULED]
TATA ENGINERING AND LOCOMOTIVE COMPANY LIMITED VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
JOGINDER PAL VS. NAVAL KISHORE BEHAL [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD VS. DARIUS SHAPUR CHENNAI [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMAR SHIVAGONDA PATIL VS. BALASAHEB TUKARAM SHEVALE [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

GAJRAJ SINGH VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2016-11-67] [REFERRED TO]
PAMBRA COFFEE PLANTATIONS VS. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY [LAWS(KER)-2018-2-97] [REFERRED TO]
ARJUN SITARAM NITANWAR VS. TAHSILDAR, DISTRICT THANE AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-2-232] [REFERRED TO]
GANDHINAGAR CHARITABLE TRUST VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2018-3-132] [REFERRED TO]
KUMAR PANKAJ ANAND VS. CENTRAL UNIVERSITY OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-12-65] [REFERRED TO]
SINHAGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY VS. DY CONSERVAT OR OF FOREST [LAWS(BOM)-2015-2-3] [REFERRED TO]
C.C THAMPI VS. INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(KER)-2020-6-130] [REFERRED TO]
PRESTIGE ESTATES PROJECTS LIMITED, BANGALORE AND O VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS [LAWS(KAR)-2017-10-192] [REFERRED TO]
CHALET HOTELS LIMITED VS. HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LIMITED [LAWS(KAR)-2020-5-126] [REFERRED TO]
INDIRABAI NARAYAN BIVALKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2014-10-116] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI KSHETRA MAHABLESHWAR DEVASTHAN TRUST VS. GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2016-3-54] [REFERRED TO]
KANYAKUMARI DISTRICT PLANTERS ASSOCIATION AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2016-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
DR. JAISHRI LAXMANRAO PATIL VS. THE CHIEF MINISTER & ORS [LAWS(SC)-2021-5-9] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYALAXMI SHRINIVAS PANDITRAO VS. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST [LAWS(BOM)-2023-8-362] [REFERRED TO]
DEVKUMAR GOPALDAS AGGARWAL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2018-9-115] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M P VS. BHAGWAT SINGH AND ANOTHER [LAWS(MPH)-2017-9-154] [REFERRED TO]
SATELITE DEVELOPERS LTD. AND ORS. VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2014-11-146] [REFERRED TO]
OZONE LAND AGRO PRIVATE LIMITED VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-6-125] [REFERRED TO]
M.C. MEHTA VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2018-9-33] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF M P VS. MANGILAL BOHARE [LAWS(MPH)-2014-5-249] [REFERRED TO]
RAJMACHI RURAL AID AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2022-4-309] [REFERRED TO]
ANANTA WAMAN TANKI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2023-7-609] [REFERRED TO]
GARNET FINANCE LIMITED AND ORS. VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(APH)-2015-3-135] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The principal question for consideration is whether the mere issuance of a notice under the provisions of Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 is sufficient for any land being declared a "private forest" within the meaning of that expression as defined in Section 2(f)(iii) of the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975. In our opinion, the question must be answered in the negative. Connected therewith is the question whether the word "issued" in Section 2(f) (iii) of the Maharashtra Private Forests Acquisition Act, 1975 read with Section 35 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 must be given a literal interpretation or a broad meaning.
In our opinion the word must be given a broad meaning in the surrounding context in which it is used.

(3.)A tertiary question that arises is, assuming the disputed lands are forest lands, can the State be allowed to demolish the massive constructions made thereon over the last half a century. Given the facts and circumstances of these appeals, our answer to this question is also in the negative.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.