“/>
MUMBAI: In a setback for the state government, the Supreme Court has quashed a 2018 Bombay High Court ruling that allowed the Maharashtra revenue department to classify plots of land in Mumbai, Thane and other parts as ‘private forests’, preventing its development potential.The SC criticized the HC judgment for not following the binding precedent of the Supreme Court, which requires strict compliance by the state with the legally mandated series of steps before private lands can be placed in the green pool. The plots ranged from an area of one hectare to a sprawl of 100 hectares. The HC bench, headed by Justice SC Dharmadhikari, had dismissed 173 petitions and approved the state’s move to bring over 14,000 hectares (about 35,000 acre) of land in Maharashtra under the private forest category.
The SC bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna Varale said, “The judiciary derives its strength from discipline and not from supremacy.”
The lands that were excluded from development would now enter the buildable pool, said Samit Shukla, partner at Trilegal.
The SC on Friday observed that all essential links in the process made mandatory under the Maharashtra Private Forests Acquisition Act were missing. “State-produced undated and unverified property papers that fail to inspire confidence when set against decades of undisturbed private property… We find that the HC’s approach in deciding the issue amounts to an attempt to avoid a binding precedent rather than apply it.”
In January 2019, when nearly 100 appeals were filed against the HC ruling, the SC ordered a status quo. The SC quashed the state’s mutation submissions declaring the lands as private forests. However, the state has the discretion to initiate proceedings by following the proper procedure, the report said.
“We also note that the court was presided over by the same judge who previously took a contrary position that was overruled by this court. We do not attribute motive. However, when a judgment minimizes a binding ratio, ignores missing legal steps and attempts to make distinctions on the basis of immaterial facts, it creates the appearance of an unwillingness to accept precedent. Such an approach conveys a degree of pettiness that is inconsistent with the detachment required by judicial reasoning. In our view, this is an unfortunate deviation from the discipline of stare decisis (priority).”
The SC said, “Respect for the higher jurisdiction is not subservience. It is a recognition that all courts share a common enterprise to do justice according to law.”
Articles 141 and 144 of the Constitution make obedience a constitutional duty and not a matter of personal preference. A judgment that attempts to resist binding authority undermines the unity of the law, burdens litigants with avoidable costs and delays, and creates the perception that outcomes depend on the identity of the judge,” the SC said.
The landowners in appeal, represented by a plethora of counsels and lawyers including Vineet Naik, Ajit Sinha, AM Singhvi, CU Singh, Neeraj Kaul, Vinay Navare, Shyel Trehan, Madhavi Divan, Saket Mone, Sukand Kulkarni and VA Gangal, contended that the HC, instead of referring the matter to a larger bench, said the SC judgment in Godrej and Boyce was distinguishable and not applicable would be on the group of petitions. After also hearing state lawyers Balbir Singh, K Parameshwar and Siddharth Dharmadhikari, the SC found no legally relevant distinction between the landowners’ cases and the principle laid down in its 2014 judgment. Merely issuing a notice does not earn the parcel the label of ‘private forest’, the SC ruled in the 2014 Godrej and Boyce land dispute over ‘private forest’ with the state; its service is also required.
“In a constitutional judiciary, as stated, it is the law that ends a conversation,” Justices Nath and Varale said. In the discipline of following precedents “lies the confidence of litigants and the credibility of courts,” the SC emphasized. “Judges do not sit to settle scores. The gavel is an instrument of reason and not a weapon of reprisal. A vengeful attitude is incompatible with the oath to uphold the Constitution and the law,” the SC further said, adding, “Judges in our country must remember that collegiality is the attendant virtue of independence and a reversal on appeal is not a personal insult but the ordinary operation of a constitutional hierarchy that errs corrects and the law regulates. Respect for the higher jurisdiction is not. It is a recognition that all courts pursue a common undertaking to do justice according to the law.”
#sets #Bombay #ruling #states #decision #classify #numerous #plots #private #forests