Then, Mr. Chagla would invite our attention to section 21 of the Act of 1975 to urge that the same enables the State Government, if it appears to it that any tract of land not being the property of Government, contains trees and shrubs, pasture lands and any other land whatsoever, and that it should be declared, in public interest and for furtherance of the objects of this Act, to be a private forest, then, the State Government has to follow the entire procedure prescribed in this provision. Once this enabling power has to be exercised in the manner set out therein, then, it could not be urged by any stretch of imagination that before any private land assumes the character of private forest, there is no necessity of preceding adjudication. Hence, there cannot be any vesting of a forest, which is private forest and not the property of the Government, independent of the above provisions of law. Mr.Chagla would submit that the provisions will have to be construed strictly. Each of the provisions of the above nature are, therefore, mandatory. There is no question of importing or applying the doctrine of substantial compliance to such cases. Mr.Chagla would, therefore, submit that the statute is expropriatory in nature. Once such is the nature of the statute, then, the interpretation of its provisions must be made with reference to its context and not de-hors it. Merely saying that this land, which is not a property of the Government, is a forest,
