LAW FOR ALL

Section 35(3) of the Indian Forest Act, 1927, Section 2(f)(iii) of the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975, Section 24 of the Private Forests Act, and Salsette Estates (Land Revenue Exemption Abolition) Act, 1951 and Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act,1976 -Godrej purchased a kowl land and obtained decree against the government when action was intiated action under Salsette Estates Act - and also obtained exemption under Urban land ceiling also and with the approval raised multi storied buildings for the staff and after the lapse of half century , it came to the light that the forest department issued notice under sec.35 to the Godrej - but there is no evidence that it was served on the Godrej nor it was published in Gazette claiming that the land was forest land and like wise there is no evidence that it was acted upon - hence the claim of forest to demolish the buildings and to deliver the vacant possession of land for developing forest under private forest Act - Apex court set aside the Bombay High court order and held that silence of Forest the word "issue" interpreted in chintamani case was over ruled - and held that The silence of the State in all the appeals before us led the appellants and a large number of citizens to believe that there was no patent illegality in the constructions on the disputed land nor was there any legal risk in investing on the disputed land. -Apex court allowed the appeals = Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. & Anr. ..….Appellants Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. …..Respondents = 2014 (January part) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41193