Zaheer Usman Wadia vs the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Zaheer Usman Wadia vs the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned notices dated 4th March 2024 and 7th March 2024, directing the petitioner to vacate and remove the structures alleged to be encroachments situated in Protected Forest Survey No.48, ought to be quashed and set aside. +1 more

Court's answer

The court found no merit and substance in the reliefs sought in the petition (to quash and set aside the impugned notices dated 4th and 7th March 2024): the petitioner does not claim ownership of the land, and even according to the pleadings of the petition he nowhere stated that he owns the land in Survey No.48/B - his pleading is to the effect that he is in possession of the land on which he erected the offending structures, which he had voluntarily removed.

Ratio / Principle

On appreciating the stand adopted by the respondents and the factual aspect, the court held that the petitioner is not the owner of the land and that Survey No.48 is Reserved Forest, as can also be seen from the 7/12 Extract as regards Survey No.48.

Key takeaways

The writ petition is dismissed and Rule is discharged.ratio¶68

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction - Writ Petition No.3674 of 2024 (filed 11 March 2024; decided 18 March 2026; oral judgment per Bharati Dangre, J.; bench: Bharati Dangre & Manjusha Deshpande, JJ.). Zaheer Usman Wadia, claiming possession (not ownership) of two structures - a stone wall compound and a residential house with wire fencing - at Village Rahur, Taluka Bhiwandi, District Thane on land bearing Survey No.48/B, sought to quash and set aside two notices dated 4th and 7th March 2024 (Exhibit-'B') issued by the Forest Officer, Padgha on orders of the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Mandvi, directing him to vacate structures alleged to be encroachments in Protected Forest Survey No.48, failing which removal would be at his cost. The notices rested on an order dated 27th February 2024 passed by the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Mandvi under Sections 53, 54 and 54A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code on the Forest Range Officer's application, following an enquiry report concluding Survey No.48 is Reserved Forest; the petitioner, described as non-applicant, did not attend. His reply of 9th March 2024 raised a solitary objection - that the referenced order/letter of 27th February 2024 of the Deputy Divisional Forest Officer, Thane was never communicated/served, breaching natural justice. The affidavit of the Assistant Conservator of Forest, Bhiwandi (Mr. Amol Dinkar Chirame) recorded: Form No.1 Register showing Survey No.48 (7.416 hectare) as protected forest with a diversion order (Exhibit-R3); Government Resolution dt. 30.1.1997 entrusting the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer with eviction powers over protected/reserved forest; notice dt. 20.2.2024 allowing 3 days for removal; service by affixture at the spot with panchanama dt. 22.2.2024 and dispatch to the last known (cause-title) address under the Indian Forest Act provisions read with Sections 53 and 54, MLRC 1966; Forest Offence Report No.11/E/2024 with panchanama dt. 18.2.2024 noting extent and GPS co-ordinates; and revenue records showing the land belongs to the Revenue Department with the structures lying in Survey No.48/A contrary to the petitioner's claim. After filing, a site visit at 11:00 a.m. on 11 March 2024 found the structure partly demolished overnight, and by the 4:30 p.m. hearing a large part stood voluntarily demolished by the petitioner. Finding that the petitioner asserted possession, not ownership, that Survey No.48 is Reserved Forest per the 7/12 Extract, and that he chose not to remain present, the Bench saw no merit in the reliefs sought and DISMISSED the writ petition, discharging Rule. No counsel represented the petitioner; Mr. M. M. Pable, A.G.P. appeared for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5-State.

NISHA SANDEEP CHITNIS

6-wp.3674.2024.doc

Digitally signed by NISHA SANDEEP CHITNIS Date: 2026.03.27 14:57:47 +0530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.3674 OF 2024

Zaheer Usman Wadia Age:41 years, Occu: Business, R/o. Rahur, Tal:Bhiwandi, Dist. Thane. … Petitioner

Versus

The Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Mandvi, Thane Office, Dist. Thane

The Forest Range Officer Padgha, Bhiwandi, Dist. Thane

The Talathi Office Rahur, Tal:Bhiwandi Dist. Thane

The Group Grampanchayat Rahur, Tal:Bhiwandi Dist.Thane

The State of Maharashtra Through Ministry of Environment & Forest, Mantralaya, Mumbai. (The Notice of Respondent No.5 be served upon the office of AGP, High Court, A.S., Mumbai) ...Respondents

1/10 e

N. S. Chitnis

6-wp.3674.2024.doc

None for the Petitioner.

Mr. M. M. Pable, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5-State.

CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE & MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.

DATE : 18^th MARCH 2026

ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Bharati Dangre, J.) :

When the writ petition was listed before us on 23^rd February 2026, none represented the petitioner. We had directed the State to file its affidavit and accordingly the learned A.G.P. has filed an affidavit of Mr. Amol Dinkar Chirame, Assistant Conservator of Forest, Bhiwandi, Thane and we have perused the same. Since none represent the petitioner today, we have perused the pleadings in the petition along with the reliefs sought therein. We deem it appropriate to issue Rule by making it returnable forthwith. Learned A.G.P waives service on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5–State.

The petitioner, claiming to be in possession of two structures situated at Village Rahur, Taluka Bhiwandi, District Thane,

2/10 e

N. S. Chitnis

6-wp.3674.2024.doc

on land bearing Survey No.48/B, on an area admeasuring from 47 guntas, receipt was served with two notices in respect of the two structures on 4^th March 2024 and 7^th March 2024 and the notice covered the stone wall compound and a residential house along with the wire fencing and a residential house.

The notices placed on record at Exhibit-'B' directed the petitioner to vacate the said structures, since they were situated in Protected Forest Survey No.48 and it was alleged that it was encroached by the petitioner and in light of the orders received from the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Mandvi, the notices were issued by the Forest Officer, Padgha asking the petitioner to remove the structures and failure to do so, it was indicated that the structures would be removed by the Government at is own expense and the costs shall be covered from the petitioner.

The petitioner responded to the Forest Range Officer on 9^th March 2024, admitting that on 8^th March 2024 he received the

3/10 e

N. S. Chitnis

6-wp.3674.2024.doc

notices dated 4^th March 2024 and 7^th March 2024 but it is stated that in the said notices there is a reference of one order/letter dated 27^th February 2024 of the Deputy Divisional Forest Officer, Thane, but the said order was never communicated and/or served upon him and since this order was passed behind his back, there is violation of principles of natural justice.

Apart from this objection, no other objection is raised by the petitioner.

To the affidavit that is filed before us traversing the pleadings in the petition, the said document being an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Mandvi, in the form of an order dated 27^th February 2024 passed under Sections 53, 54 and 54A under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, is annexed. The said order is passed on the application of the Forest Range Officer, Padgha with the petitioner being described as non-applicant and it refers to the Survey No.48 as a Protected Forest and it has a reference to the enquiry report, which has referred to the impugned structures of the petitioner

4/10 e

N. S. Chitnis

6-wp.3674.2024.doc

in form of a stone compound along with residential house and which is described to be an encroachment. It also has a reference to the enquiry report conducted, and the detailed report has concluded that Survey No.48 is a Reserved Forest and the petitioner who has erected structures is not entitled to do so and therefore the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer by invoking the power under Sections 53, 54 and 54A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, passed an order for removal of the encroachment addressing non-applicant i.e. the present petitioner.

The petitioner did not bother to attend the said proceedings and infact in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the Assistant Conservator of Forests, has specifically pleaded that the petition is being filed by the petitioner on a premise that he is the legitimate title holder of the Survey No.48/B and the offending structures and he has produced some tax payment receipts. However, it is categorically stated that none of the documents established the title of the petitioner over the subject land and rather the land revenue report in respect of

5/10 e

N. S. Chitnis

6-wp.3674.2024.doc

Survey No.48 and 48/A reflect that the land belongs to the Revenue Department and the offending structure of the petitioner is situated at Survey No.48/A contrary to what he claims that it is situated in Survey No.48/B.

The affidavit-in-reply categorically state that during the routine inspection of the Forest Department, a note was taken of the unauthorised structure of the petitioner and a Forest Offence Report bearing Offence No.11/E/2024 and while doing so panchanama was drawn in presence of independent witness and the extent of structure was recorded and GPS co-ordinates were also noted. The Forest Department thereafter carried out an exercise of identifying the offending structures and demarcating them on the village map being made available by the Revenue Department and the Range Forest Officer, Padgha and Rang Surveyor, Thane Forest Department, Thane, prepared the necessary maps to identify the structures for taking action.

The affidavit-in-reply is accompanied with the Forest Offence Report as well as the panchanama dated 18^th February 2024.

6/10 e

N. S. Chitnis

6-wp.3674.2024.doc

A categorical statement is made in the affidavit-in-reply to

the following effect :-

“6. I say that the Forest Department has again verified the records and confirmed in the Form No. 1 Register maintained by Thane Forest Division and observed that Survey No. 48 admeasuring 7.416 Hectare is protected Forest land and there is Order of diversion passed against the said area. Hereto annexed and marked as EXHIBIT-R3 is the copy of Form No.1 maintained by the Thane Forest Division, Thane.

I say that the Round Forest Officer, Padgha has conducted a detailed assessment of the illegal construction on Survey No. 48 which includes Survey No. 48 A and 48B and submitted the enquiry report to the Sub Divisional Forest Officer, Mandavi, Thane for taking further action. I say that the Sub Divisional Forest Officer is authorized to exercise the power to evict the unauthorized occupant on the protected forest, reserved forest and any other land belonging to the Forest Department. The above powers are entrusted to the Sub Divisional Forest Officer by the Govt. Resolution dt. 30.1.1997 issued by the State Government.

I say that in view of the Govt. Resolution dt. 30.01.1997. the Sub Divisional Forest Officer has issued Notice dt. 20.2.2024 to the Petitioner for removing the unauthorized constructions within 3 days from the receipt of the Notice.”

7/10 e

N. S. Chitnis

6-wp.3674.2024.doc

The affidavit-in-reply also speak about the attempts made

to serve the notice upon the petitioner but a categorical statement is made that he could not be found on the spot and the notices were posted at a prominent place outside the entrance of the structure and panchanama to that effect was also drawn on 22^nd February 2024. It is therefore the stand of the Assistant Conservator of Forests, that the petitioner is not the resident of Village Rahur, Taluka Bhiwandi, District Thane, and his exact address is not to be found in any records and therefore the statutory notices for initiating proceedings for eviction under the provisions of Indian Forest Act read with Sections 53 and 54 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 were issued on the last known address available in the records i.e. the address mentioned in the cause-title of the petition.

A statement is also contained in the affidavit-in-reply that after the writ petition was filed on 11^th March 2024 and circulated before this Court, and the Forest Department visited the site at 11:00 a.m. on 11^th March 2024, a partly demolished structure was found and

8/10 e

N. S. Chitnis

6-wp.3674.2024.doc

making it eminently clear that the part of the structure was demolished in the intervening night between 10^th March 2024 and 11^th March 2024. Further a statement is also made to the effect that when the matter was heard at around 4:30 p.m. on 11^th March 2024, a large structure of the offending structure was already voluntarily demolished by the petitioner.

In the wake of the above, since we do not find that the petitioner claims the ownership of the said land and infact even according to the pleadings of the petition, he has no where stated that he owns the land in Survey No.48/B and rather the pleading is to the effect that he is in the possession of the land on which he has erected the offending structures which he had voluntarily removed and therefore we do not find any merit and substance in the reliefs which are sought in the petition being to quash and set aside the impugned notices dated 4^th March 2024 and 7^th March 2024. In any case the petitioner has also chosen not to remain present before us and therefore on appreciating the stand adopted by the respondents and

9/10 e

N. S. Chitnis

6-wp.3674.2024.doc

the consideration of the factual aspect that the petitioner is not the owner of the land and that the Survey No.48 is Reserved Forest and this can also seen from the 7/12 Extract as regards Survey No.48, we dismiss the writ petition. Rule is discharged.

MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.

BHARATI DANGRE, J.

10/10 e

N. S. Chitnis

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Two notices dated 4th March 2024 and 7th March 2024, placed on record at Exhibit-'B', issued by the Forest Officer, Padgha in light of orders received from the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Mandvi, directing the petitioner to vacate and remove the structures (stone wall compound and a residential house along with wire fencing) alleged to be encroachments situated in Protected Forest Survey No.48, failing which the structures would be removed by the Government at its own expense and the costs recovered from the petitioner. These are the notices the petition sought to quash and set aside.¶27
Forest Officer, Padgha (Forest Range Officer, Padgha), acting on orders of the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Mandvi · 4th and 7th March 2024
Prior proceeding
During routine inspection the Forest Department took note of the petitioner's unauthorised structure, opened Forest Offence Report No.11/E/2024, drew a panchanama in the presence of an independent witness recording the extent of the structure and GPS co-ordinates; the affidavit-in-reply is accompanied by the Forest Offence Report and the panchanama dated 18th February 2024.¶44
Prior proceeding
As stated in the affidavit-in-reply, the Government Resolution dt. 30.1.1997 issued by the State Government entrusted the Sub Divisional Forest Officer with the power to evict unauthorised occupants on protected forest, reserved forest and any other land belonging to the Forest Department.¶52
Prior proceeding
In view of the Government Resolution dt. 30.01.1997, the Sub Divisional Forest Officer issued a notice dt. 20.2.2024 to the petitioner asking him to remove the unauthorised constructions within 3 days from receipt of the notice.¶53
Prior proceeding
An order dated 27th February 2024 was passed by the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer, Mandvi under Sections 53, 54 and 54A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code on the application of the Forest Range Officer, Padgha, with the petitioner described as non-applicant; referring to the enquiry report which described the stone compound with residential house as an encroachment and concluded Survey No.48 is Reserved Forest, it ordered removal of the encroachment.¶38
Prior proceeding
The petitioner did not attend the proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Forest Officer.¶39
Prior proceeding
The affidavit-in-reply records that the Forest Department again verified the Form No.1 Register maintained by Thane Forest Division, confirming Survey No.48 admeasuring 7.416 hectare as protected forest land with an order of diversion passed against the area (annexed as Exhibit-R3).¶51
Prior proceeding
As the petitioner could not be found on the spot, the notices were posted at a prominent place outside the entrance of the structure with a panchanama drawn on 22nd February 2024; since his exact address was not found in any records, the statutory notices initiating eviction proceedings (Indian Forest Act read with Sections 53 and 54 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966) were issued to the last known address available, i.e. the address in the cause-title of the petition.¶58
Prior proceeding
By reply dated 9th March 2024 to the Forest Range Officer, the petitioner admitted receiving the notices dated 4th and 7th March 2024 on 8th March 2024 and raised a single objection: that the notices referenced an order/letter dated 27th February 2024 of the Deputy Divisional Forest Officer, Thane which was never communicated/served, having been passed behind his back, amounting to violation of principles of natural justice; apart from this objection no other objection was raised.¶32
Prior proceeding
The writ petition was filed on 11th March 2024 and circulated before the Court; a Forest Department site visit at 11:00 a.m. on 11th March 2024 found a partly demolished structure (demolished in the intervening night between 10th and 11th March 2024), and by the time the matter was heard at around 4:30 p.m. the same day, a large part of the offending structure had already been voluntarily demolished by the petitioner.¶63
Prior proceeding
On the earlier listing on 23rd February 2026 none represented the petitioner; the State was directed to file its affidavit, and the learned A.G.P. filed the affidavit of Mr. Amol Dinkar Chirame, Assistant Conservator of Forest, Bhiwandi, Thane; the Court issued Rule returnable forthwith and the learned A.G.P. waived service on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and 5-State.¶21