No Legal Right Arises From Encroachment On Reserved Forest Land | GRs Of 2015 And 2018 Not Applicable To Structures In Mangrove Buffer Zone : Bombay High Court
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Bombay Division Bench of Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Advait M. Sethna dismissed a writ petition challenging demolition action undertaken by state authorities against alleged unauthorized hutments on government land classified as reserved forest. The Court held that the petitioners had no legal right to occupy the land and that the action taken by the authorities was in accordance with law. It found no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioners regarding protection under slum rehabilitation policies or applicability of Government Resolutions. The petition was dismissed, along with all interim applications. While observing that the petition was an abuse of legal process, the Court refrained from imposing exemplary costs in view of the socio-economic background of the petitioners. The matter was disposed of in terms recorded in the judgment.
The petition challenged an alleged illegal demolition conducted on 9 April 2021 by State authorities of structures located at Laxman Bhandari Chawl, situated in Charkop Gaon, Kandivali (West), Mumbai. These structures were constructed on land bearing Survey No. 39, admeasuring approximately 55 hectares and 1900 square meters, recorded in government and public records as reserved forest.
The petition was instituted by individuals claiming to be occupants of the demolished structures. The petitioners contended that they were protected occupiers under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 (“Slums Act”) and entitled to protection under two Government Resolutions (GRs) dated 16 May 2015 and 16 May 2018. They asserted that their structures existed prior to 1 January 2000 and were therefore eligible for rehabilitation and protection under the slum rehabilitation framework.
The petitioners further alleged that the demolition was carried out without notice and in violation of principles of natural justice. They stated that despite ongoing representation and proceedings, the authorities evicted them and razed their structures without determining their eligibility. They also claimed that the land was not notified as forest under Section 4 of the Indian Forest Act, 1927 and hence, they were not subject to the restrictions applicable to forest land.
They relied on a series of documents in support of their occupation and claimed protection including electricity bills, ration cards, and affidavits. They also relied on photographs of the demolished structures and referred to decisions of the Supreme Court and Bombay High Court pertaining to rehabilitation of slum dwellers.
The petitioners raised contentions relating to Article 14 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, arguing that their right to shelter had been infringed. They prayed for directions restraining the authorities from removing them, for status quo to be maintained, and for implementation of rehabilitation measures as per the applicable Government Resolutions.
On the other hand, the respondents filed detailed affidavits denying all material contentions. They submitted that the subject land was reserved forest land and fell within the prohibited 50-meter buffer zone of mangroves, where human habitation was legally impermissible. They placed on record revenue documents and a sketch plan to show that the land fell within the area covered by the Indian Forest Act, 1927, and that the encroachments were being removed as part of legally sanctioned operations under Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.
The respondents asserted that the demolition was carried out in accordance with law after issuing notices under Section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and Section 3 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. They denied that any permanent structures existed on the land and contended that all hutments were illegal. The Collector of Mumbai Suburban District filed an affidavit stating that none of the petitioners were registered slum dwellers or eligible for protection under the Slums Act or the Government Resolutions. It was further stated that the petitioners’ structures were not covered under any slum scheme or recognized by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA).
A joint site inspection was conducted by the revenue authorities, and it was submitted that the structures were erected without any legal right, title, or approval. The respondents also produced communication from the Tahsildar, Borivali, and relevant land records to support their claim that the subject land was government forest land under encroachment.
During the hearing, the State reiterated that the demolition had targeted only illegal and unauthorized structures and that the government was obligated to act to protect public forest lands. It was submitted that the photographs relied upon by the petitioners showed temporary tin-sheet structures and not permanent dwelling units. The State emphasized that mere production of electricity bills and ration cards did not create any legal entitlement.
The Court also recorded that the site in question was the subject matter of earlier PILs and court proceedings where similar encroachments had been directed to be removed. Previous decisions, including orders in PIL No. 10 of 2012, had upheld the removal of encroachments on forest land and buffer zones around mangroves.
The petitioners placed reliance on judgments in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Charudatta Pandurang Koli & Ors., Utran Se Besthan Railway Jhopadpatti Vikas Mandal v. Government of India & Ors., and other authorities dealing with censused slums and rehabilitation schemes for project-affected persons. However, the respondents argued that these authorities were inapplicable as the petitioners were not protected slum dwellers or affected by any public project.
The Court considered whether the petitioners had any statutory protection under the Slums Act, 1971 or were eligible for benefits under the Government Resolutions cited. It also examined the legality of the demolition action and whether due process was followed. The record was assessed for any document establishing the petitioners’ eligibility, including verification under any slum census or slum survey.
Ultimately, the question before the Court was whether the petitioners could claim a right to remain on public forest land in the absence of any recognized status under statutory schemes and without permission or authority. The final adjudication would turn on an assessment of the legal status of the structures and the applicability of protections claimed.
The Court recorded that the petitioners claimed entitlement to protection under the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 and the Government Resolutions dated 16 May 2015 and 16 May 2018. However, it found no material on record establishing that the petitioners were recognized slum dwellers or that their structures had been included in any slum census or survey.
“From the record it is clear that the petitioners’ hutments are not censused or recognized by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority. There is nothing on record to show that they are eligible slum dwellers or that their structures have been verified for protection under the Government Resolutions of 2015 or 2018.”
The Court noted that the petitioners’ reliance on documents such as electricity bills, ration cards, and affidavits was insufficient to establish legal entitlement to remain on government land, particularly when the land in question was a notified reserved forest and fell within the prohibited 50-meter mangrove buffer zone.
“Merely producing certain documents such as electricity bills or ration cards does not confer legal rights or protection under the Slums Act or the Government Resolutions. Such documents cannot override the statutory provisions governing forest land and restricted buffer zones.”
The bench further observed that the petitioners failed to provide evidence demonstrating that the structures had existed prior to 1 January 2000. It stated that such assertions, without official verification or inclusion in a government-recognized survey, could not be accepted.
The Court reviewed the evidence submitted by the respondents, including land records, site inspection reports, and revenue documents, and accepted the contention that the subject land was classified as government forest land. “The subject land is reserved forest land and falls within the legally protected mangrove buffer zone. The records produced by the State revenue and forest departments support this classification.”
In response to the petitioners’ contention that no notice was served prior to demolition, the Court recorded that notices had been issued under relevant provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.
“It is evident from the affidavits and documents placed on record that notices under Section 53(1) of the MRTP Act and Section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code were issued and served prior to the demolition action.”
The Court acknowledged that while enforcement of land protection measures may be delayed, that delay does not validate illegal encroachments. It also commented on the broader challenge of protecting public lands in Mumbai.
“Delayed action by the State cannot be a ground to legitimize encroachment on government land. The rule of law must prevail, and public lands must be preserved for public purposes.”
On the petitioners’ reliance on precedent involving censused slums or rehabilitation for project-affected persons, the Court distinguished those cases, stating: “The decisions cited by the petitioners pertain to censused slums and rehabilitation in cases of project-affected persons. Such facts are not present in the current matter. The petitioners are not covered under any recognized slum or notified scheme.”
The bench made strong remarks regarding the need for state authorities and citizens to prevent encroachment on public lands: “It is high time that the government officials rise to the expectations reposed in them under the laws and the Constitution and protect government/public lands. Also, the municipal authorities need to take stringent steps in removing encroachments and illegal constructions.”
The Court stated that permitting unauthorized occupants to claim protection merely because enforcement is delayed would incentivize illegality: “Merely because the concerned State and Municipal Officials do not take timely steps, by passage of time, such illegal occupants unfortunately start believing that rights are created in them. This has brought about avalanche of litigation on unauthorized construction and encroachment.”
In reference to previous judicial decisions such as Galaxy Enterprises v. State of Maharashtra and New Janta SRA CHS Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, the Court cited those cases to support its position on protecting public lands.
The bench quoted the Supreme Court’s approval of these views in Yash Developers v. Harihar Krupa Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. and reaffirmed that judicial tolerance of encroachment was legally impermissible.
Finally, the Court addressed the request for costs and declared that despite finding the petition to be an abuse of the legal process, it would not impose exemplary costs due to the socio-economic status of the petitioners.
“We may observe that this is a fit case wherein we need to impose exemplary costs considering that the present petition is an abuse of process of law. However… we refrain from doing so… although we would be justified in imposing costs, the untold mantra is that ultimately they are slum dwellers.”
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Accordingly, interim application/s also do not survive and the same are accordingly dismissed.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Ms. Ronita Bhattacharya Bector, Advocate
For the Respondents: Ms. Uma Palsuledesai, Additional Government Pleader for the State; Ms. Anuja Tirmali with Ms. Jyoti Mhatre instructed by Komal Punjabi
Case Title: Sandesh Mahadev Lavnde & Ors. v. Collector, Mumbai Suburban District & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC-OS:8408-DB
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 157 of 2022 with Interim Application No. 1991 of 2024
Bench: Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Advait M. Sethna
[Read/Download order]
