Atul Enterprises vs Union Of India & Ors.

The Petitioner challenges the notification dated 18^th February, 2009, and 30^th March, 2010, issued by Respondent No.4 Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division along with Communication dated 3^rd October, 2025 issued by the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest i.e. Respondent No.3.

The learned Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. Saket Mone submits that he has raised challenge to the Notifications and communication issued by the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, respectively, whereby the private property belonging to the Petitioner has been notified as, ‘Mangrove Forest’, which according to him is done without following the due process of law, as contemplated under the provisions of Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975.

According to him, he has purchased the said property from the erstwhile owner for development. The development permission has been granted to the Petitioner by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority for the larger property, however, the Respondent No. 7–Slum Rehabilitation Authority while considering the Petitioner’s slum rehabilitation proposal has excluded the portions of larger property being Survey No. 161 (pt), CTS Nos. 1/A/10 Plot No. D/36 adm. 5,612 sq. mtrs., CTS Nos. 1/A/15 Plot No. D/40 adm. 8,041 sq. mtrs., CTS Nos. 1/A/17 Plot No. D/42 adm. 5,401 sq. mtrs., CTS Nos. 1/A/18 Plot No. D/44 adm. 6,835 sq. mtrs., CTS Nos. 1/A/19 Plot No. D/45 adm. and granted limited approval to the Petitioner’s slum rehabilitation proposal only to the extent of its area admeasuring 23,294.60 sq. mtrs.

The Respondent No. 7 has refused to grant approval to the subject property by observing that the subject property is demarcated, as ‘Mangrove Forest’. The City Survey Officer, Goregaon upon enquiry informed that no record to identify ‘mangroves’ on the subject property is available with their office. Therefore, the Petitioner approached the Respondent No. 3–the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, Mangrove Cell with a request to conduct a survey to ascertain a classification of the subject property vide letter dated 17^th January, 2024.

It is submitted that on 18^th March, 2024, the Divisional Forest Officer MMCU submitted its report stating that the subject property falls under the category of ‘forest’. Based on the said report, the Respondent No. 3, directed the Petitioner to take prior permission of this Court for carrying out any further activity on the land since it fell within 50 meter buffer zone of the mangrove.

He would further submit that on 30^th October, 2024, the Respondent No. 3 himself had addressed a communication to the MRSAC, observing that presently there are no mangroves on the subject property, therefore requesting the Respondent No. 3 MRSAC to provide map of the subject property from the year 2000 onwards to ascertain the correct demarcation of the subject property.

It is submitted that the city survey officer has informed the District Superintendent of land records, Mumbai that though the subject property is shown as, ‘Mangrove Forest’, no record or map is available in their office to show that the subject property falls within ‘Mangrove Forest Area’. On this background the Petitioner was shocked to receive the impugned communication dated 3^rd October, 2025, wherein the Respondent No.3 has declared that the subject property falls under the mangrove forest by relying on the MRSAC map of the year 2005, as well as IIST report/map of 2018.

The learned advocate for the Petitioner further submits that, when no record is available with the city survey office, that would show that, the subject property is a ‘Mangrove Forest’, coupled with the fact that Respondent No.3 himself has stated in the communication addressed to the MRSAC that presently there are no Mangroves present in the subject property, ignoring this factual position, subject property has been declared as, ‘Mangrove Forest’, by the Respondent No.3.

He would submit that the property in question is a private property and if at all it is to be declared as, ‘Forest’, the authorities will have to invoke the provisions of Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975 which has not been done in the case of the Petitioners.

The Petitioners have never received any notice for that purpose inspite of which, the subject property has been included in the Notification dated 18^th February, 2009, and final Notification dated 30^th October, 2010, issued by the Respondent No.4.

After issuing of notice in the matter, the reply affidavit has been filed by the Respondent No.3 i.e. the Additional Chief Conservator of Forest (Mangrove Cell). The learned Government Pleader Ms. Anjali Helekar appearing for the Respondent–State authorities relying on the said affidavit, submits that a categorical admission is given in the affidavit by the Respondent No.3 that, the impugned Notification at Exhibit–T is not in conformity with the procedure prescribed under the Indian Forest Act, 1927 for notifying the land as ‘Reserved’ or ‘Private Forest’. It is also stated that the State Government has no proprietary rights over the privately owned land and it cannot be notified as a ‘reserved’, or ‘protected forest’, under Sections 4, 20 or 29 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927. The Notification at Exhibit–T does contain any reference to a statutory provision under which it is issued. It is also admitted that there is no record available with the mangroves cell that, the procedure under Section 21 of the Maharashtra Private Forest (Acquisition) Act, 1975 has been undertaken in respect of the subject land. Thus, it is admitted that the Notification at Exhibit–T dated 18^th February, 2009 has been erroneously issued without any legal base.

During the course of hearing, when the learned AGP has conceded that the Notifications have been erroneously issued by Respondent No. 3, the learned Advocate Ms. Jaya Bagwe for Respondent No. 6–MCZMA submits that in view of the affidavit filed by the Respondent No.3, if the Petitioner files any application to the MCZMA, it will be favourably considered.

After hearing the respective parties and more particularly after appreciating the contents of the affidavit filed by the Respondent No.3, in view of the legal position conceded in the reply affidavit, that the Notification at Exhibit–T has been erroneously issued the only course open is to quash and set aside the same. In view of un-sustainability of Notification at Exhibit–T dated 18^th February, 2009, the consequent Notification dated 30^th March, 2010, also becomes unsustainable. Hence, both the Notifications are required to be quashed and set aside.

Similarly, the Petitioner has also challenged communication dated 3^rd October, 2025, issued by the Additional Chief Conservator of Forest, Mangroves Cell, Mumbai, declaring the property of the Petitioner to be mangrove forest. The Respondent No. 3 has also declared that the Petitioner cannot carry out any non forest activity within 50 meters mangrove buffer zone. Hence, it is ordered that without prior permission of the Respondent No.6– MCZMA and this Hon’ble Court, the Petitioner is prohibited from carrying out any development activity.

The aforementioned impugned communication dated 3^rd October, 2025, is also issued by the Additional Principal Chief Conservator of Forest, who has filed an affidavit stating that the Notification issued declaring the land of the Petitioner as forest itself is erroneously issued, therefore, the impugned communication dated 3^rd October, 2025, which has been issued consequent to the Notification dated 18^th March, 2009, and 30^th March, 2010, is also quashed and set aside.

Resultantly, the Notifications issued by the Respondent No. 4 dated 18^th February, 2009, and 30^th March, 2010, notifying the privately owned land of the Petitioner as, land under ‘mangrove land’ and ‘forest’, so also the communication dated 3^rd October, 2010 issued by Respondent No.3 imposing restrictions on the use of land of the Petitioner, are quashed and set aside.

The Writ Petition, is accordingly disposed of in the above terms.