Bombay High Court
Group Gram Panchayat, Shridhon And Anr vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 22 July, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:30356-DB
Megha 209_pil_3_2005_fc.docx
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.3 OF 2005
1. Group Gram Panchayat.
Shirdhon through its Sarpanch Ram
Ganapat Bhoir
2. Ram Ganpat Bhoir, Sarpanch,
Shirdhon Gram Panchayat ...Petitioners
V/s.
1. State of Maharashtra through
Chief Secretary (Revenue)
Revenue and Forest Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai.
2. Divisional Commissioner,
Konkan Division, Konkan
Bhavan, Navi Mumbai.
3. District Collector, Raigad, H.O.,
Alibag, District- Raigad.
4. Tahasildar, Panvel, Tal Panvel,
District-Raigad.
5. Ramchandra D. Sawant, Joint
Secretary, Kasegaon Education
Society, Kasegaon, Tal. Walwa,
District-Sangli. ...Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.16125 OF 2025
IN
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.3 OF 2005
Maharashtra Students Union, ...Petitioners
Page No. 1 of 11
Megha 209_pil_3_2005_fc.docx
Mumbai through its founder
President -Siddharth s/o. Sonaji
Ingle
V/s.
Group Grampanchayat Shirdhon
and Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.10747 OF 2023
IN
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.3 OF 2005
Vidyadhar Hasuram Thakur ...Petitioner
V/s.
Group Grampanchayat Shirdhon
and Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.16 OF 2007
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.69 OF 2009
IN
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.3 OF 2005
Ramchandra D. Sawant ...Applicant
(oirg. Respondent No.5)
V/s.
Group Grampanchayat Shirdhon
and Ors. ...Respondents
______________
Mr. C.G. Gavnekar with Mr. Rohit Parab for the Petitioner.
Mr. O.A. Chandurkar, Addl. GP with Ms. G.R. Raghuwanshi,
AGP for Respondent-State.
______________
Page No. 2 of 11
Megha 209_pil_3_2005_fc.docx
CORAM: ALOK ARADHE, CJ. &
SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Judgment reserved on: 14 JULY 2025
Judgment pronounced on: 22 JULY 2025
Judgment: (PER: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.)
1) Petition is filed by Group Gram Panchayat, Shirdhon
and its Sarpanch challenging allotment order dated 14 July 2004
allotting the land in favour of Respondent No.5. Petitioner
Grampanchayat had sought allotment of the concerned land for
extension of gaothan and is aggrieved by action of Respondent
Nos.1 to 4 in allotting the same to Respondent No.5-Education
Institution.
2) Brief facts leading to filing of the present Petition are
as under:
Land admeasuring 5-61-0 Hector at Survey Nos.29/0, 30/0, 39/0,
31/0, 34/0, 35/0 and 36/0 situated at Village -Shirdhon, Taluka -
Panvel, District-Raigad is the subject matter of the Petition
(hereinafter referred to as the subject land). On 5 December
1990, the Petitioner-Grampanchayat received communication
from the Circle Inspector stating that ex-armymen have applied
for the allotment of the subject land. The Grampanchayat
informed the Circle Officer that land was required for grazing of
cattle and that it was intended to carry out the activity of social
Megha 209_pil_3_2005_fc.docx
forestry on the subject land. On 15 May 1991, Circle Officer
informed the Petitioner-Grampanchayat that a Trust by name-
Krishna Bhartiya Charitable Trust had applied for allotment of
the subject land. Petitioner -Grampanchayat once again raised
objection to the allotment. On 22 October 1992, an application
was made by Krantivir Vasudeo Balvant Phadke Smarak
Samitee for allotment of the subject land and Grampanchayat
held meeting on 22 October 1992 recording objection for
allotment of the land. On 28 June 1998, the Petitioner adopted
resolution to seek allotment of the subject land for extension of
existing gaothan as population of Village-Shirdhon has
increased. On 8 August 1998, Petitioner-Grampanchayat adopted
a resolution demanding allotment of the land admeasuring 3
guntha each for 250 residents belonging to weaker section of the
village. Petitioner-Grampanchayat applied to District Collector,
Raigad for allotment of the subject land. On 21 July 2001 a
request was received from Rukhminibai Pratishthan for
allotment of subject land and this time again, the
Grampanchayat informed the Applicant about its requirement in
respect of the land.
3) On 10 May 2002, Circle Officer gave an intimation to
the Petitioner -Grampanchayat about receipt of application for
allotment of land and allotment was once again resisted by the
Petitioner-Grampanchayat. On 26 January 2003, the
Grampanchayat adopted one more resolution for allotment of
land for the purpose of extension of gaothan. One more
intimation was received from the Circle Officer about application
Megha 209_pil_3_2005_fc.docx
made by one Shri Atmaram Namdev Patil for allotment of land,
which was again opposed by Petitioner -Grampanchayat. By
order dated 14 July 2004, the State Government allotted the
subject land to Respondent No.5- Kasegaon Education Society by
charging 25% of the market value.
4) Aggrieved by the allotment order dated 14 July 2004,
Petitioners have filed the present Petition. This Court directed
maintenance of status-quo with regard to the subject land by
order dated 16 February 2005. By order dated 3 October 2005
Petition came to be admitted and the order of status-quo has
been continued.
5) Mr. Gavnekar, the learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioners would submit that the State Government has
erroneously allotted the subject land in favour of Respondent
No.5 ignoring the demand of the Grampanchayat. That part of
the subject land is gairan land, which cannot be allotted without
seeking consent of the Grampanchayat. That every time request
for allotment of the land was received, Petitioner-Grampanchayat
always raised objection and sought allotment of the same for its
own purposes. That Respondent No.5 has absolutely no
educational activity in Raigad District and merely because the
Cabinet Minister was office bearer of Respondent No.5 Society,
the land has been allotted by practising favouritism and
discrimination. That valuable piece of land is allotted at just 25%
of the market value so as to favour Respondent No.5. The need of
the villagers is not considered, who desperately need the land for
Megha 209_pil_3_2005_fc.docx
extension of gaothan. That when need of the villagers for the
land is compared with need of Respondent No.5 to establish
education institution, the former must prevail. He would
accordingly pray for setting aside the impugned allotment order
dated 14 July 2004.
6) Mr. Chandurkar, the learned Addl. Govt. Pleader
would oppose the Petition submitting that the concerned land is
owned exclusively by the State Government, who alone can
decide about allotment. That Grampanchayat cannot have any
say in allotment of subject land nor it can insist that it has any
preferable right in seeking allotment. That the concerned land is
Akaripad land and that therefore has rightly been allowed in
favour of Respondent No.5. Possession of the subject land has
already been handed over to Respondent No.5. Mr. Chandurkar
would question maintainability of the PIL contending that the
Petitioners are seeking allotment of land to themselves. In
support, he would rely upon judgment of this Court in Santosh
Madhukar Bhondve and Ors. V/s. State of Maharashtra
and others.1 He would accordingly pray for dismissal of the PIL
Petition.
7) None has appeared for Respondent No.5 when the
Petition is called out for final hearing.
8) Rival contentions of the parties now fall for our
consideration.
Writ Petition No.3098 of 2021, decided on 12 September 2024.
Megha 209_pil_3_2005_fc.docx
9) Petitioners are aggrieved by allotment of subject land
to Respondent No.5 vide order dated 14 July 2004. Petitioner -
Grampanchayat wants the said land to be allotted to itself for
being used by the villagers for extension of gaothan. The exact
purpose for which the allotment of land is needed by Petitioner is
uncertain. The purpose shown by Petitioner for seeking
allotment has apparently varied. The purpose earlier was shown
as 'for cattle grazing', which later changed to gaothan extension
and at one time the purpose was shown as allotment of plots
admeasuring 3 guntha each for 250 residents of village.
10) Since Petitioner has opposed allotment of land to
Respondent No. 5 and is seeking allotment thereof exclusively for
itself, it must establish a legal right to have the same allotted to
itself. Admittedly the State Government is the owner of the land.
This is not a gairan land handed over by the State Government
to the Grampanchayat.
11) In the light of this position, it is necessary for the
Petitioner -Grampanchayat to establish that its consent is
necessary for the purpose of allotment of land to any entity by
the State Government. Petitioner does not dispute the position
that the land is in the ownership of the State Government. On
behalf of the State Government, an affidavit has been filed by the
Under Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department confirming
that the land in question is Akaripad (land falling in
Government control due to non-payment of land revenue by the
Megha 209_pil_3_2005_fc.docx
owner) and falls in exclusive ownership of the State Government.
This contention raised in the affidavit-in-reply is not contested by
the Petitioner. No document is placed on record to demonstrate
that consent of Grampanchayat is necessary for the purpose of
allotment of the subject land in favour of any entity.
12) It is also pointed out in the affidavit-in-reply that the
subject land could not be allotted in favour of Grampanchayat as
the same is separated by difference of 200 meters from the limits
of existing gaothan. It is therefore pointed out that extension of
gaothan cannot be effected by seeking allotment of the concerned
land as the same is not contiguous with the land on which
existing gaothan is situated.
13) It is also pointed out by the State Government that
currently there are no educational institutions in the vicinity of
village Shirdhon. It appears that Respondent No.5 is well
established in the field of education, who was conducting about
39 educational institutions in the State at the time of filing of the
affidavit. The allotment of land in favour of Respondent No.5
appears to have been done with a view to ensure development of
the village as operation of educational complex in the village
would generate not just employment, but also bring along overall
development of the area.
14) Since the land is Akaripad, in the exclusive
ownership of the State Government, Petitioner -Grampanchayat
cannot insist that the land must be allotted to it and not to
Megha 209_pil_3_2005_fc.docx
Respondent No.5. Petitioner- Grampanchayat has not been able
to indicate any preferential right created in its favour to have the
land allotted in its name. Right of the State Government to allot
the land owned by it under Section 40 of the Maharashtra Land
Revenue Code, 1966, has been upheld by the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in Santosh Madhukar
Bhondve(supra). In paragraph 24 of the judgment, it is held as
under:
24. Section 40 of the MLRC, 1966 as extracted above, vests
almost absolute right in the State Government to dispose of
any land or property of the Government on such terms and
conditions as it deems fit. The language in which Section 40
is couched leaves no room of doubt that the right of the State
Government to dispose of any of its land or property is
irrespective of any provision of MLRC, 1966 for the reason of
opening phrase occurring in Section 40 is "nothing contained
in any provision of this Code". Thus, we are of the opinion
that by operation of Section 40 of the MLRC, 1966, the State
Government is vested with right to dispose of any land of the
Government on such terms and conditions which are to be
determined by it irrespective of any other provision available
in MRLC, 1966 including Section 22A. Such, an
interpretation of Section 40 qua Section 22A of the MLRC,
1966 is based on the rationale that the Government is the
absolute owner of its own property and land and hence,
putting any fetter on the right of the Government to dispose
of any property on the terms and conditions to be
determined by it, in our opinion, will not be permissible and
therefore, in the view of the Court, notwithstanding the
prohibition contained in Section 22A of the MLRC, 1966, the
Government still will have all the authority and power to
dispose of its land.
15) So far as the allegation of part of the land being
gairan land, this Court has already taken a view in Shamrao
Ramrao Shitole and others V/s. The State of Maharashtra
Megha 209_pil_3_2005_fc.docx
and others2 that judgment of the Apex Court in Jagpal Singh
and Ors. V/s. State of Punjab and others 3 as well as
Government Resolution dated 12 July 2011 do not contemplate
annulment of allotment already made by the State Government.
The judgment of the Supreme Court as well as the Government
Resolution deal with removal of encroachment from gairan land.
Since the land has been allotted by the State Government in
favour of Respondent No.5, it cannot be contended that there is
any encroachment by Respondent No.5 in respect of the subject
land. However, we need not delve deeper into this aspect as
Petitioner has failed to contest the stand taken by the State
Government in the Affidavit that the land in question is
Akaripad falling in exclusive ownership of the State
Government. In fact, the very demand made by the Petitioner-
Grampanchayat for allotment of land for cattle grazing shows
that it is not a gairan land. It is another matter that the
Grampanchayat had altered the purpose of seeking allotment to
that of village extension.
16) In our view therefore, Petitioner-Grampanchayat has
not been able to demonstrate any vested right in its favour either
to object to allotment of land in favour of Respondent No.5 or to
seek allotment of land in its own name on a preferential basis.
The challenge raised by the Petitioners to the allotment of land
must accordingly fail.
PIL No.128 of 2005, decided on 8 July 2025.
(2011) 11 SCC 396
Megha 209_pil_3_2005_fc.docx
17) Since Petitioner is seeking allotment of land to itself
it cannot be contended that any public interest is involved in the
present Petition. This appears to be a pure dispute between the
Petitioner - Grampanchayat and Respondent No.5 in respect of
allotment of the subject land. Petitioner wants the land to be
utilized for use by the villagers personally and not as a
community. No element of public interest is involved in the
Petition, which is yet another factor that petition deserves
dismissal.
18) We are therefore of the view that no relief can be
granted in favour of the Petitioner in the present Petition. PIL
Petition is accordingly dismissed.
19) All pending Applications stand disposed of.
[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 23/07/2025 11:29:11
