)
A recent Supreme Court order has set aside a Bombay High Court ruling on “private forest” thus opening up huge tracts of land parcels for development. The order also quashes all notices in the writ petitions regarding “forest land”.
The Supreme Court order is significant as:
- It will brings relief to nearly 550,000 residents who had bought flats in buildings constructed on land categorised as “private forest land” by the state government;
- It is expected to revive 25-30 stalled projects;
- It will entitle the developers and residents whose properties were listed as encroachments to recover the fines paid to the state government;
- It will rationalise land prices and pave the way for development of more than 100 real estate projects in this belt;
- Interest of developers and consumers/investors will be safeguarded in light of the decision on the forest land status.
In 1956-57, the state government issued notices to about 170 land owners under the Indian Forest Act, 1927, calling upon them to show cause within reasonable time, as to why their land was not a “forest”. The parcels of land were located in Mulund, Thane, Vikhroli and other suburbs and mofussil areas of Mumbai (then known as Bombay). A forest includes any land containing trees and shrubs, pasture, lands and any other land whatsoever, which the Provincial Government may, by notification in the official gazette, declare to be a forest.
After issue of the notification under the Indian Forest Act, there was no follow up action by the State Government. Neither was any attempt made by it to take possession of such lands, nor were these land recorded as “forest”. On the contrary, the development plans for the City of Bombay (and Greater Bombay) published in 1967 and in 1991 designated these lands as “R” or “Residential”. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay even granted permission from time to time to developers to construct buildings.
As the records did not reveal that the land parcels were acquired Private Forests, sale/purchase and resale have taken place and third party interests created. Individuals and members of public wanting accommodation for housing invested their lifetime savings and/or raising loans entered into transactions of purchasing the flats without their fault in hundreds of buildings constructed with the then valid approvals.
In 2005, the Bombay High Court passed an order to demarcate the forest land area that these areas are now being treated as falling in category of “forest”. In 2006, writ petitions were filed by the affected parties inter alia for declaration that the lands owned by them are not forest land and that the mutation of the lands being recorded as “forest” in the revenue records is illegal.
In 2008, the Bombay High Court dismissed the petitions on the state government’s claim that the land on which the development was being undertaken was a “private forest land”. The Municipal Corporation thus refused construction permission to developers thereby stalling many projects.
Conclusion
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Apex Court was of the view that the State had fallen short in the area of good administration and governance. In any case, it was the machinery at the state’s command itself that was responsible for sanctioning a large number of unhindered permissible constructions. There was also the absence of any attempt to take possession of “forest land” for a couple of decades. On the contrary, the state machinery provided necessary infrastructure such as roads and sanitation on such lands and surrounding areas, thus giving general impression that the development initiatives had the green signal of the state government. In the light of these facts, the Supreme Court's order is a step in the right direction.
-- The author is a partner of J Sagar & Associates, Advocates & Solicitors. Views are personal. (ashoogupta@jsalaw.com)
