Is permission from the Central government necessary for land development if the collector has declared it non-forest land?

 8.2. The Petitioners have placed on record sufficient material to prove that the said lands admittedly are agricultural lands and not 'forest land'. Admittedly, there is no documentary proof available with the Respondents to establish that the said lands are "private forest" or "reserved forest". In fact, the Respondents never treated the said lands as 'forest land'. The Petitioners submit that admittedly, no notification and/or notices, either under Section 35 or 38 of the Act of 1927 or under Section 21 of the State Act were ever published and/or issued in respect of the said lands; that no entry is made in the "Golden Register" maintained by the Respondent No. 1 recording that the said lands stood acquired as "forest lands."

8.3. Section 2 of the Central Act refers to restrictions on the de-reservation of forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose. Perusal of this Section shows that the said provision applies to forests or use of forest land for non-forest purpose and clearly implies that the land in question to which the said provision applies should be reserved forests or forest land or any portion of forest land. The said Section states that no State Government shall make except with the prior approval of the Central Government any order directing any reserved forest or any forest land or any portion thereof to be dealt with or de-reserved. It is implicit by the bare reading of the Section that the said provision applies in the case of reserved forest/forest land or any portion thereof. In the present case Respondent No. 2 - Collector by his draft speaking order dated 13.11.2011 has conclusively determined that the said lands are not forest lands. This determination is pursuant to the statutory inquiry as contemplated under the provisions of Section 6 of the State Act. This determination has been done on 13.01.2011. The State Government has not filed any Appeal challenging the decision of the Collector within the prescribed period of sixty days before the Tribunal and as such the decision of the Collector in respect of the said lands has become final. The said lands therefore cannot be deemed to be forest land/reserved forest or any portion thereof as forest for the purpose of obtaining prior approval of the Central Government for its de-reservation and use for non-forest purpose under the Central Act.

9. In the above backdrop it is stated that for the provisions of Section 2 of the Central Act to come into force, a jurisdictional fact that the land in question is a 'forest' needs to exist. If the land in question is 'not a forest', then the provisions of Section 2 of the Central Act cannot be invoked or made applicable. Section 2 of the Central Act come into play only if the subject land is a forest and not otherwise. In the present case, the decision of the Collector under the provisions of Section 6 of the State Act adjudicating that the said lands are 'not private forest' having become final, the State Government cannot invoke the provisions of Section 2 of the Central Act for seeking de-reservation of the said lands.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 95 of 2020

Decided On: 15.03.2022

Sankalp Resorts Limited and Ors.  Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.J. Kathawalla and Milind Narendra Jadhav, JJ.

Authored By : S.J. Kathawalla, Milind Narendra Jadhav

Citation: MANU/MH/0881/2022

Print Page

Bombay HC: Confessional statement of accused recorded by Deputy Range Forest Officer is not admissible in evidence

It can, thus, be seen that to the extent the Act of 1972
makes provision for a particular aspect as a special Statute, the
same would override and prevail over the general provisions. It is
trite that what cannot be achieved directly, cannot be allowed to
be achieved indirectly. In the present case, there is a specific
procedure laid down in the Act of 1972 for recording of evidence/
confession by an Officer not below the rank of Assistant Director
of Wild Life Preservation or an Officer not below the rank of
Assistant Conservator of Forest, authorised by the State
government in this behalf. Thus, the said provision cannot be
allowed to be circumvented on the ground that the Forest Officers
not being Police Officers could record the confession, as it would
not be hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. Such a confession, if
not hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act, would certainly be
against the letter and spirit of Section 50(8) of the Act of 1972,
which is a special enactment and which would prevail in the
matter. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to
interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned
Sessions Judge.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 1 OF 2015

State (Through Range Forest Officer Netrawal – Goa)  V Francis Masrenhas,

CORAM :- C. V. BHADANG, J.

Pronounced on : 22ndJune, 2015.
Citation: 2016 ALLMR(CRI)2510

Print Page

Whether Principle of caveat emptor would be applicable in extraordinary circumstances?

 Looking at the issue from point of view of the citizen and not only from the point of view of the State or a well meaning pressure group, it does appear that even though the basic principle is that the buyer should beware and therefore if the appellants and purchasers of tenements or commercial establishments from the appellants ought to bear the consequences of unauthorized construction, the well-settled principle of caveat emptor would be applicable in normal circumstances and not in extraordinary circumstances as these appeals present, when a citizen is effectively led up the garden path for several decades by the State itself. The

present appeals do not relate to a stray or a few instances of unauthorized constructions and, therefore, fall in a class of their own. In a case such as the present, if a citizen cannot trust the State which has given statutory permissions and provided municipal facilities, whom should he or she trust?

REPORTABLE

Supreme Court of India

Godrej & Boyce Mfg.Co.Ltd. & Anr. vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors. on 30 January, 2014

Madan B. Lokur, J.

Print Page