Kerba Bhujang Gawale And Others vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others

7) Digambar Munjaji Gawale Age: 77 years, Occu: Agri., All R/o. Teljapur, Tq. Palam, Dist. Parbhani. ----PETITIONERS

VERSUS

1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2. The District Collector, Parbhani. Dist. Parbhani.

3. The Sub Divisional Officer Gangakhed,

WP-13556-2025.odt 1 of 7 Tq. Gangakhed, Dist. Parbhani

4. The Tahsildar, Gangakhed Dist. Parbhani. ----RESPONDENTS

Mr. S. V. Mundhe, Advocate for petitioners Mr. S. B. Narwade, AGP for respondent-State

CORAM : Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi & Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ. DATE : 14th November, 2025

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

-

1. Petitioners in this petition 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 Barren Government Land and gairan land on the basis of the

Government Resolution dated 28.11.1991 issued by the State of

Maharashtra.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioners are

agriculturists by profession and are cultivating the Government Barren

Land since last 50 years. Thus, they are in possession of the said land

and earning their livelihood from the agricultural produce of the said

land. Petitioners placed reliance on 7/12 extract of Survey No. 10 and

have thus argued that as per the Government Resolution dated

28.11.1991, the State of Maharashtra has decided to regularize the

encroachment upon the said land and on the basis of the said

WP-13556-2025.odt 2 of 7 Government Resolution, the possession of the barren land is with the

petitioners from 01.04.1978 to 14.04.1990 and are thus entitled to be

regularize in the name of the petitioners. It is also submitted that in

pursuance of the Government Resolution dated 28.11.1991, respondent

No. 3 has also prepared panchanama in 2007 and on the basis of the

said panchnama, the names of the petitioners are mentioned therein

clearly reflects that the petitioners are in possession of the barren land

and is being cultivated for agricultural purpose.

3. Learned AGP appearing for the State opposes the petition

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.

4. 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

WP-13556-2025.odt 3 of 7 consideration, this Court may direct the authorities to decide them.

However, in the present matter barren government land and 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.

5. 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 Hon'ble

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.

6. Turning now to the Government Resolution dated

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

WP-13556-2025.odt 4 of 7 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.

7. In the present matter, none of the petitioners have

demonstrated either in their representations or in this petition 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.

8. 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.

WP-13556-2025.odt 5 of 7

9. There is yet another insurmountable obstruction for the

petitioners gross delay and latches. The petitioners claim to have made

an application in the year 2007 and it is the contention of the petitioners

that some punchnama was drawn by the authorities in respect of the

barren land showing petitioners are in possession and cultivation.

Thereafter, on 02.04.2018, the petitioners' proposal was forwarded to

the District-level committee as well as to the State-level committee for

an appropriate decision. The record also shows that on 06.02.2019, the

petitioners proposal of regularizing has been rejected by the District

Collector, Parbhani. Against the said decision, petitioners have not taken

any steps till date. The petitioners have directly approached this Court on

12.08.2025 seeking directions to the respondent authorities to regularize

the encroachment on the subjected land. Thus, the delay that has been

caused since 1991 till 2007 and, thereafter, from 2007 till 2018 and

further from 2019 till August, 2025, has absolutely not been averred or

explained. Such unexplained delay of decades is fatal to the writ petition.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court has constantly held that stale claims cannot

be revived through writ jurisdiction, especially where Government land is

involved and third party rights and public rights stands affected.

10. This Court cannot shut its eyes to the constitutional

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

Permitting encroachers to remain indefinitely or granting even a direction

WP-13556-2025.odt 6 of 7 for "consideration" of regularization would effectively defeat the mandate

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and result in perpetuation of illegality.

11. 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;

(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

12. Consequently, writ petition stands dismissed.

13. No order as to costs.

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

B. S. Joshi

WP-13556-2025.odt 7 of 7