Bombay High Court

RAMDAS SURYABHAN KHADEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROU. PRINCIPAL SEC. DEPT OF REVENUE AND ORS

Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The petition is disposed as the State has taken cognizance of the grievance and is conducting a review, rendering further judicial intervention unnecessary.

Summary

The petitioner filed a public interest litigation seeking protection of Devasthan lands (Nos. 5‑7) alleging that occupants had obtained the deletion of the "Devasthan Inam Class‑3" remark and conversion to Occupancy Class‑1 through fraudulent applications approved by the Hon’ble Minister. The petitioner cited a Tahsildar’s report dated 26‑08‑2024 and a prior order of this Court dated 11‑12‑2025 that disapproved the manner in which the lands were being dealt with. The State of Maharashtra, through an affidavit dated 24‑02‑2026, informed the Court that a review of the ministerial orders is underway and that a minimum period of six months is required to hear all concerned parties before issuing any further orders. The Court observed that the State has taken note of the grievance and is in the process of reviewing the orders, thereby addressing the petitioner’s concerns. Consequently, the Court disposed of the PIL, noting that the petitioner may revive the matter if the grievance persists after the review. The judgment therefore rests on the principle that a pending administrative review suffices to stay further judicial intervention.

Issues considered

Whether the PIL seeking injunction against the conversion of Devasthan Inam Class‑3 lands should be entertained when the State has undertaken a six‑month review of the ministerial orders.

Subjects

Devasthan lands
Inam
public interest litigation
land conversion
ministerial order
administrative review
fraud
disposal

Judgment

35-PIL-104-2025.doc

Digitally signed
by HARISH
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
HARISH VITHAL
VITHAL CHAUDHARI CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CHAUDHARI Date:
2026.08.18
19:54:08 +0530 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 104 OF 2025

Ramdas Suryabhan Khade ...Petitioner.
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra
Throu. Principal Sec.
Dept Of Revenue And Others ...Respondents.

——————
Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni for the Petitioner.
Mr. Siddheshwar B. Kalel AGP for the Respondent-State.
——————

Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh &
Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ.
Date : August 18, 2026.
P. C. :

1. The PIL petition is in respect of preserving and protecting the

Devasthan lands of Respondent Nos. 5 to 7.

2. Reliance is placed on the report of the Tahsildar dated 26.08.2024,

based on the complaint by the present PIL petitioner, in respect of

Mhasvadsiddh Dev, Revansiddha Dev, Tryambakeshwar Dev and

Sitaramchandra Dev. The report of the Tahsildar states that in respect of

the land belonging to the Devasthan, there has been an application by

the occupants of the land for deletion of the "Devasthan Inam Class-3"

remark and for conversion of Devasthan Inam Class-3 lands into

Occupancy Class-1.

Harish 1 of 3
35-PIL-104-2025.doc

3. Mr. Kulkarni submits that a systematic fraud has been played, as

such applications are iled and orders are being passed in respect

thereof by the Hon’ble Minister, which is reported by the Tahsildar. He

would further point out order of this Court dated 11.12.2025, which

disapproves the manner in which the Devasthan lands are being dealt

with and disposed of as indicated in the report of the Tahsildar. He

would further point out the aidavit-in-reply of Respondent No. 1,

stating that a minimum period of six months is required to hear the

concerned parties and issue orders after providing them with an equal

opportunity to present their case.

4. We have perused the report of the Tahsildar dated 26.08.2024.

The report is in respect of the Devasthan lands, and it is stated that in

respect of those lands, the remark was of Devasthan Inam Class-3, and

upon applications being iled by the occupants before the Hon'ble

Minister for the purpose of deletion of the Devasthan Inam Class-3

remark, the Hon'ble Minister has allowed those applications and has

deleted the remark. From the report of the Tahsildar, it appears that the

applications were iled before the Hon'ble Minister, who has

adjudicated the applications. There does not appear to be any further

challenge to the order of the Hon'ble Minister.

5. As the Respondent-State has taken note of the grievance of the

PIL petitioner and has iled an aidavit dated 24-02-2026 of the Joint

Harish 2 of 3
35-PIL-104-2025.doc

Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, stating that the process of

reviewing the orders at the government level is currently underway and

a minimum period of six months is required to hear the concerned

parties and issue orders, the grievances raised in the PIL petition are

addressed.

6. As the Respondent State is now seized of the orders and has

proposed to hear the concerned parties and issue appropriate orders,

the PIL petition can be disposed of. The PIL petition is disposed of

accordingly.

7. It is open for the PIL petitioner to revive the cause, in the event, it

is found that the grievance still subsists due to inaction on part of the

respondents.

[Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]

Harish 3 of 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…