Baban Vithal Ade and Others vs The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary and Others

WP-13465-2025 & WP-13468-2025.odt 1 of 11 Age 50 years, occu. Agri. Labour r/o as above

9) Girjabai Ramchandra Lokhande Age 70 years, occu. Agri. Labour r/o as above

10) Vithal Gangaram Telange died through his legal heirs Chatharabai w/o Gangadhar Telange Age 48 years, occu. Agri. Labour r/o as above

11) Jijabai Madhav Lokhande Age 74 years, occu. Agri. Labour r/o as above

12) Namdeo Gangaram Telange died through his Legal heirs Ramdas Namdeo Telange Age 45 years, occu. Agri. Labour r/o as above

13) Govind Gangaram Telange died through his legal heirs Narayan Govind Telange Age 51 years, occu. Agri. Labour r/o as above

14) Sambhaji Dashrath Shinde Age 78 years, occu. Agri. Labour r/o as above.

15) Kalubai Tukaram Kasture died through her legal heirs Shindubai Vishwamber Kudre Age 50 years, occu. Agri. Labour r/o as above -------PETITIONERS

WP-13465-2025 & WP-13468-2025.odt 2 of 11 Versus

1) The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary Revenue and Forest Development Mantralaya, Mumbai- 32

2) The District Collector, Collector Office, Nanded --------RESPONDENTS

AND WRIT PETITION NO. 13468 OF 2025

1) Baban s/o Vithal Ade Age 50 years, occu. Agri. labour R/o Gadadgavhan Tq. Jintur District: Parbhani

2) Tukaram s/o Sakharam Chavan Age 70 years, occu. Agri. labour R/o Gadadgavhan Tq. Jintur District: Parbhani

3) Ashok s/o Umla Ade Age 55 years, occu. Agri. labour R/o Gadadgavhan Tq. Jintur District: Parbhani

4) Janardhan Rustum Khillare Age 40 years, occu. Agri. labour R/o Gadadgavhan Tq. Jintur District: Parbhani

5) Taru Husa Chavan Age 50 years, occu. Agri. labour R/o Gadadgavhan Tq. Jintur District: Parbhani

6) Rahul Murlidhar Khillare Age 30 years, occu. Agri. labour

WP-13465-2025 & WP-13468-2025.odt 3 of 11 R/o Gadadgavhan Tq. Jintur District: Parbhani

7) Hiraman Sakhaam Chavan Age 36 years, occu. Agri. labour R/o Gadadgavhan Tq. Jintur District: Parbhani

8) Ashruba s/o Sopan Chavan Age 30 years, occu. Agri. labour R/o Gadadgavhan Tq. Jintur District: Parbhani

9) Narayan s/o Sakharam Chavan Age 60 years, occu. Agri. labour R/o Gadadgavhan Tq. Jintur District: Parbhani

10) Pandharinath Ashok Ade Age 32 years, occu. Agri. labour R/o Gadadgavhan Tq. Jintur District: Parbhani

11) Shivaji Teja Rathod Age 40 years, occu. Agri. labour R/o Gadadgavhan Tq. Jintur District: Parbhani

12) Uttam Nanu Rathod Age 60 years, occu. Agri. labaour R/o Gadadgavhan Tq. Jintur District: Parbhani

13) Baba Somla Chavan died through his legal heirs Gulab Baba Chavan Age 30 years, occu. Agri. labour R/o Gadadgavhan Tq. Jintur District: Parbhani

WP-13465-2025 & WP-13468-2025.odt 4 of 11 14) Devidas Bhuja Rathod died through legal heirs Narayan Devidas Jadhav Age 25 years, occu. Agri. labour R/o Gadadgavhan Tq. Jintur District: Parbhani

15) Dhavaji Ade died through legal heirs Uttam Dhavaji Ade Age 35 years, occu. Agri. labour R/o Gadadgavhan Tq. Jintur District: Parbhani

16) Gulab Rathod died through his legal heirs Maroti Gulab Rathod Age 40 years, occu. Agri. labour R/o Gadadgavhan Tq. Jintur District: Parbhani -----PETITIONERS

Versus

1) The State of Maharashtra Through Secretary Revenue and Forest Development Mantralaya, Mumbai- 32

2) The District Collector, Collector Office, Parbhani

3) The Deputy Collector, Collector Office, Sailu District: Parbhani -----RESPONDENTS

Mr. V. L. Dhoble, Advocate for petitioners Mr. A. M. Phule, AGP for respondent-State in WP/13465/2025 Mr. R. S. Wani, AGP for respondent-State in WP/13468/2025

WP-13465-2025 & WP-13468-2025.odt 5 of 11 CORAM : Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi & Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ. DATE : 12th November, 2025

JUDGMENT (PER : Hiten S. Venegavkar, J) :

-

1. Both these writ petitions, involving identical questions of fact

and law, are being disposed of by this common judgment. The

petitioners in these petitions invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the

respondent authorities to regularize their alleged encroachments upon

gairan (grazing) land on the basis of the Government Resolution dated

28.11.1991 issued by the State of Maharashtra.

2. In Writ Petition No. 13465 of 2025, the petitioners seek

regularization of their occupation over land bearing Gut No. 224, situated

at Village Aasadvan, Tq. and Dist. Nanded. In Writ Petition No. 13468 of

2025, the petitioners claim regularization over lands bearing Gut Nos.

33, 34 and 71, situated at Village Gadadgavan, Tq. Jintur, Dist. Parbhani.

According to the petitioners, the said lands are gairan lands belonging to

the State.

3. The petitioners aver that they belong to Scheduled Caste

communities, are landless agricultural labourers, and fall below the

poverty line. They state that they have allegedly been in occupation of

WP-13465-2025 & WP-13468-2025.odt 6 of 11 the government lands for several decades and, therefore, their

encroachments deserve regularization in terms of the aforesaid

Government Resolution. They further contend that they have submitted

several representations from time to time, some are as far back as the

1980's, they requested regularization, but the authorities failed to take

any decision.

4. In Writ Petition No. 13468 of 2025, an additional fact

emerges that portions of the very lands encroached upon by the

petitioners were mutated and transferred to the Forest Department in

the year 1989. Even thereafter, the petitioners claim that their

occupation ought to be regularized under the 1991 policy.

5. Learned AGP appearing for the State opposes the petitions

contending that the petitioners are admitted encroachers upon

Government land and no vested or statutory right exists in their favour

which would warrant exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article

226. It is further argued that repeated representations made and

allegedly not decided for decades cannot create a right in favour of

encroachers. The AGP relies upon judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court holding that encroachment upon Government land cannot be

directed to be regularized and such lands must be restored for public

interest and public purpose.

WP-13465-2025 & WP-13468-2025.odt 7 of 11

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and

the learned AGP for the State and have perused the material placed on

record. Ordinarily, in a case where representations are pending

consideration, this Court may direct the authorities to decide them.

However, the present matter concerns gairan land, which is property of

the State held for public purpose, and any direction to even consider

regularization must be examined strictly in the light of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court jurisprudence on illegal encroachment.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in decision of Jagpal Singh v.

State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 396, has held that public lands,

village common lands, grazing lands, forest lands, tanks, and water

bodies cannot be permitted to be encroached upon, nor can the Court

issue directions for regularization of illegal occupation. The Supreme

Court emphatically held that:

- Encroachers have no equity in their favour.

- Government land must be protected and restored to its original

public use.

- Courts must not pass orders which encourage encroachment or

compel the State to regularize such illegal occupation.

- Welfare or poverty cannot justify perpetuating illegality against

public property

These observations apply squarely to the present petitions.

WP-13465-2025 & WP-13468-2025.odt 8 of 11 8. Turning now to the Government Resolution dated

28.11.1991 relied upon by the petitioners, particularly Clause 10, the

policy clearly mandates that only those encroachers whose names

appear in the list prepared by the Collector for the period 01.04.1978 to

14.04.1990 are eligible for regularization. In cases where names are not

included, the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer must first conduct an

inquiry into occupation, verify eligibility, and only then forward such

cases to the Collector for decision.

9. In the present matters, none of the petitioners have

demonstrated either in their representations or in these petitions that

their names figure in the Collector's list prepared for the period 1978-

1990, prior to 1990-1991. They have also not pleaded or produced any

material to show that the Sub-Divisional Officer has ever conducted the

mandatory inquiry contemplated under Clause 10. The representations

merely assert long-standing possession; they do not establish eligibility

as per the Government Resolution. Thus, even on the petitioners' own

showing, the foundational requirements of the 1991 Government

Resolution are not satisfied.

10. Moreover, in Writ Petition No. 13468 of 2025, the record

itself shows that the lands have been transferred to the Forest

Department as far back as 1989. Once forest land vests in the Forest

WP-13465-2025 & WP-13468-2025.odt 9 of 11 Department, not only is the same protected by the Forest Conservation

Act, 1980, but also no regularization of encroachment is legally

permissible unless permitted by Central Government which the

petitioners do not even assert.

11. Even otherwise, the policy of 1991 cannot override statutory

protections or subsequent judicial directions of the Supreme Court. The

Court cannot, under Article 226, compel the State to regularize

encroachment in the face of binding precedent which prohibits such

regularization.

12. There is yet another insurmountable obstacle for the

petitioners gross delay and laches. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.

13465 claim to have made applications as early as the year 2000, and

the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 13468 claim to have approached

authorities in the year 1975. They resurfaced only in 2022-2023 seeking

regularization under a 1991 policy and thereafter approached this Court

in 2025. Such unexplained delay of decades is fatal to a writ petition.

The Supreme Court has consistently held that stale claims cannot be

revived through writ jurisdiction, especially where government land is

involved and third-party rights and public rights stand affected.

13. This Court cannot shut its eyes to the constitutional

obligation of the State to protect public lands for community use.

WP-13465-2025 & WP-13468-2025.odt 10 of 11 Permitting encroachers to remain indefinitely or granting even a direction

for "consideration" of regularization would effectively defeat the mandate

of the Supreme Court and result in perpetuation of illegality.

14. In view of:

(a) the clear law laid down by the Supreme Court prohibiting

regularization of government land encroachments;

(b) the failure of petitioners to satisfy mandatory requirements of

the 1991 Government Resolution;

(c) the transfer of some lands to the Forest Department; and

(d) the extraordinary delay and laches in approaching this Court,

No relief can be granted to the petitioners under Article 226

of the Constitution of India

15. Consequently, both writ petitions stand dismissed.

16. No order as to costs.

(Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.) (Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.)

B. S. Joshi

WP-13465-2025 & WP-13468-2025.odt 11 of 11