Case: Maharashtra Land Development Corporation Vs. State Of Maharashtra

Act make it clear that certain matters would not be germane to the matter in question; the authority must disregard those irrelevant collateral matters." 43. However, the Wednesbury principle of reasonableness has given way to the doctrine of proportionality. Through his decision in the celebrated case of Council of Civil Services Unions v. Minister for the Civil Services reported at [1985] AC 374, Lord Diplock widened the grounds of judicial review. He mainly referred to three grounds upon which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review. The first ground being "illegality", the second "irrationality" and the third `procedural impropriety. He also mentioned that by further development on a case to case basis, in due course, there may be other grounds for challenge. He particularly emphasized the principles of proportionality. Thus, in a way, Lord Diplock replaced the language of `reasonableness with that of `proportionality when he said: "By `irrationality I mean what can by now be succinctly referred to as `Wednesbury unreasonableness...It applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it...." 44. The principle of proportionality envisages that a public authority ought to maintain a sense of proportion between particular goals and the means employed to achieve those goals, so that administrative action impinges on the individual rights to the minimum extent to preserve public interest. Thus implying that administrative action ought to bear a reasonable relationship to the general purpose for which the power has been conferred. The principle of proportionality therefore implies that the Court has to necessarily go into the advantages and disadvantages of any administrative action called into question. Unless the impugned administrative action is advantageous and in public interest such an action cannot be upheld. At the core of this principle is the scrutiny of the administrative action to examine whether the power conferred is exercised in proportion to the purpose for which it has been conferred. Thus, any administrative authority while exercising a discretionary power will have to necessarily establish that its decision is balanced and in proportion to the object of the power conferred.45. This principle has found favour in recent times with this Court, and a number of decisions reflect the shift towards the doctrine of proportionality. 46. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh reported at (1983) 2 SCC 442 , this Court held that if the penalty imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, it would violate Article 14 of the Constitution. 47. In Ex-Naik Sardar Singh v. Union of India and Ors reported at (1991) 3 SCC 213 where instead of one bottle of brandy that was authorized, the delinquent was found carrying four bottles of brandy while going home on leave.He was sentenced to three months rigorous imprisonment and dismissal from service which was found by this Court to be disproportionate to the gravity of the offence proved against him. 48. In Coimbatore District Central Coop. Bank v. Employees Assn. reported at (2007) 4 SCC 669 this Court stated that the doctrine of proportionality has not only arrived in our legal system but is here to stay. With the increasing presence and visibility of administrative law and the need to control possible abuse of discretionary powers by various administrative authorities, certain principles have been evolved by reference to which the action of such authorities can be judged. If any action taken by an authority is contrary to law, improper, irrational or otherwise unreasonable, a court competent to do so can interfere with the same while exercising its power of judicial review. 49. In Charanjit Lamba vs. Commanding Officer, Southern Command and Ors, reported at AIR 2010 SC 2462 , it was held that "The constitutional requirement for judging the question of reasonableness and fairness on the part of the statutory authority must be considered having regard to the factual matrix obtaining in each case. It cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. It must be considered keeping in view the doctrine of flexibility. Before an action is struck down, the court must be satisfied that a case has been made out for exercise of power of judicial review. We are not unmindful of the development of the law that from the doctrine of Wednesbury unreasonableness, the court is leaning towards the doctrine of proportionality...." 50. The test of proportionality is therefore concerned with the way in which the decision-maker has ordered his priorities, i.e., the attribution of relative importance to the factors in the case. Thus, it is not so much the correctness of the decision that is called into question, but the method to reach the same. In this context, we are to see if the decision of the respondent-State in considering the disputed property to be automatically vested with the Government is commensurate with public interests, in a way that affects individual rights in a minimal way.51. The decision of the Government, as we have elucidated earlier, has been guided by the provisions in the Act, which seek to conserve and protect private forests in the State of Maharashtra that have been facing severe depletion and exploitation. Therefore, the Act, which provides for the vesting of private forests with the Government, does so in the general interests of the public in tune with principles of environmental protection and sustainable development, to which we have alluded at the outset. In our opinion, the respondent-State was only acting in accordance with the principles envisaged in the Act. This action cannot in any way said to be disproportionate or irrational solely because it divests the appellant-Corporation of the land within Survey 345-A. The circumstances of this case, especially in so far as it relates to the quarrying operations conducted by the appellant-Corporation in the said area, merit that the State protects the interests of the general public by acquiring the land as a private forest.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]34. Despite these averments, we are unable to agree with the contention of theThe definition of a `forest as enunciated in Section 2(ii) of the Act specifically includes "land which is part of a forest or lies within it or was part of a forest or was lying within a forest on the 30th day of August, 1975". It is already established that subsequent to proceedings initiated under the Bombay Salsette Estate Abolition Act, 1951, the entire land bearing Survey No.was held to be a "forest" vide an order dated 24th December, 1964. A bare reading of the provision also indicates that the definition of `forest is an inclusive definition and therefore, it could have a wider connotation and it would not be appropriate to give it a restrictive meaning. Every word and phrase of the Act is to be understood in its context and must be given significance so that they are not rendered redundant. The appellant has steadfastly maintained that the interpretation of the provisions cannot mean land which was a forest in the past (i.e. before 30th August, 1975) to be a `forest according to the Act. This argument might have had some force had the time period in question related to many decades or even a century before. The aforementioned proceedings were concluded in proximity to the appointed day in question, and the character of land cannot be said to have changed over such a relatively short period of time. It is beyond doubt that the land which encompassed the said portion of 53 acres belonging to thewas a `forest on the appointed day. In our considered opinion, the facts on record seem to overwhelmingly support such a conclusion.35. The appellant has submitted that although the word `Forest was added in the Record of Right after such proceedings, it was later dropped when the matter went up in appeal to the Commissioner. Even if this were to be considered, it is to be noted that the preponderance of evidence seems to indicate the land in Survey No. 345 was considered as `forest. This is amply supported by documentary evidence, including the mortgage deed of 1900, and the revenue records of the past 50 years. Moreover, the conveyance deed dated 29.3.1975 which was executed by the Court Receiver to the appellant, clearly describes the land as "piece or parcel of forest land with structures". This is further buttressed by the mutation entries tillwhich described the land as a forest. Even the mutation entries fromhave only changed the recording to `huts, quarry and grass which does not in any way dispute the nature of the land. That apart in the enquiry conducted underof Section 37 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, it was admitted by the Company through whom the appellant had derived title that the land was forest land. Therefore, there is overwhelming documentary evidence and also contemporaneous evidence on record to prove and establish that the land, in question, even in recent times was considered as forest land and also retained its character as such.36. Therefore, the issue of whether the land in question was a `forest on the appointed day, has to be seen in the context of whether the entire land that encompassed the disputed area was a `forest on the said date. In order to seek the reasons behind such an analysis, we need only look into the legislative scheme of the Act, which has been elaborated hereinabove.Therefore it is clear that the purpose of the statute and the intention of the legislature in enacting the same must be of paramount consideration while interpreting its provisions. In this instance, moreover, the provisions of the Act present no apparent conflict with the overarching objective of vesting `private forests with the State in the Governments efforts to protect them. Further, it is important to note that the said area was being used for quarrying operations by theThat the said portion in the area of Surveymeasuring 209 acres is claimed to be rocky and devoid of growth certainly does not change the character of the forest land. It cannot be disputed that within forest areas, there exists water bodies swamp land, grass land etc. The very existence of such land within the forest area would and could not change the nature and character of the forest land and the same would still continue to be treated as forest land. In many instances across the country, mining and quarrying operations, while regulated, do take place in forest land, and they can very well be considered as forest produce. However, the harmful effects of the ecological imbalance that may result as a consequence of quarrying operations in a forest zone is also to be considered.39. Thus, in light of the legislative scheme of the Act, and the provisions discussed herein, we are of the considered opinion that the said portion of the land, measuring 53 acres will vest with theas a `private forest. That the area fell within a part designated as `forest on the 30th of August, 1975 is beyond dispute and is supported by the evidence on record. Therefore, by virtue of Section 2(ii) of the Act, the portion in dispute will also be designated as a `private forest under Section 2(f) of the Act, and the authorities are directed to maintain it as such.40. It may also be cursorily mentioned here that both parties have made submissions with regard to the requirement of issuance of notice as per Section 35(3) of the Act. Neither the issuance and service of the notice, nor its publication in the Government Gazette could be challenged as both the exercises have been done in the present case. The High Court in its impugned order has extensively dealt with the same and has recorded a finding that notice was issued to the registered owner and served. These conclusions have not been specifically challenged by the appellant. It is proved and also recorded that the notice under Section 35(3) of Forest Act was issued to the owner on 8.8.1975 and was served on the recorded owner. Since the notice was issued and served on the recorded owner, the same was sufficient compliance. In order to fortify our conclusions we also rely on the judgment of this Court in Chintamani Gajaman Velkar Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. Reported in (2003) 3 SCC 143, wherein this Court held that irrespective of whether the notice was served on the land owner before the appointed date or not, issuance of notice before that day would itself be sufficient for vesting the land in the State.41. Thehas also alleged that the States decision to consider the disputed land as automatically vested with the Government was irrational and disproportionate. In this regard, it was the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that while it may be possible for the Government to regulate and prohibit certain activities in `forest lands, the ownership would continue to vest with the private owners, and there cannot be any automatic vesting of the same. Thus it was argued that taking away the ownership of the land was wholly disproportionate in nature.42. Being called upon to review this administrative action, we have examined as to whether the same amounts to irrational or disproportionate. The common yardstick to determine whether the act on the part of the Government violates established principles of administrative law has been the Wednesbury principle of unreasonableness, employed both by English and Indian Courts. The Wednesbury principle was enunciated by Lord Greene MR inThe principle of proportionality envisages that a public authority ought to maintain a sense of proportion between particular goals and the means employed to achieve those goals, so that administrative action impinges on the individual rights to the minimum extent to preserve public interest. Thus implying that administrative action ought to bear a reasonable relationship to the general purpose for which the power has been conferred. The principle of proportionality therefore implies that the Court has to necessarily go into the advantages and disadvantages of any administrative action called into question. Unless the impugned administrative action is advantageous and in public interest such an action cannot be upheld. At the core of this principle is the scrutiny of the administrative action to examine whether the power conferred is exercised in proportion to the purpose for which it has been conferred. Thus, any administrative authority while exercising a discretionary power will have to necessarily establish that its decision is balanced and in proportion to the object of the power conferred.45. This principle has found favour in recent times with this Court, and a number of decisions reflect the shift towards the doctrine of proportionality.The test of proportionality is therefore concerned with the way in which thehas ordered his priorities, i.e., the attribution of relative importance to the factors in the case. Thus, it is not so much the correctness of the decision that is called into question, but the method to reach the same. In this context, we are to see if the decision of thein considering the disputed property to be automatically vested with the Government is commensurate with public interests, in a way that affects individual rights in a minimal way.51. The decision of the Government, as we have elucidated earlier, has been guided by the provisions in the Act, which seek to conserve and protect private forests in the State of Maharashtra that have been facing severe depletion and exploitation. Therefore, the Act, which provides for the vesting of private forests with the Government, does so in the general interests of the public in tune with principles of environmental protection and sustainable development, to which we have alluded at the outset. In our opinion, thewas only acting in accordance with the principles envisaged in the Act. This action cannot in any way said to be disproportionate or irrational solely because it divests theof the land within SurveyThe circumstances of this case, especially in so far as it relates to the quarrying operations conducted by thein the said area, merit that the State protects the interests of the general public by acquiring the land as a private forest.