Bombay High Court

PURUSHOTTAM PUNDALIK TAYADE AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed as the petitioners have already been exonerated, rendering the petition without purpose.

Summary

A complaint was lodged with the Maharashtra Lokayukta alleging encroachment of government and gaothan land by a sarpanch in Jalna district. The Lokayukta’s confidential report under Section 12(3) of the Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa‑Lokayuktas Act, 1971 found deficiencies in the Zilla Parishad officials and directed a further inquiry under Section 12(4). The Zilla Parishad conducted a departmental inquiry which ultimately exonerated the petitioners, who argued that the alleged illegal activities occurred when they were not posted at the village. The respondents contended that the inquiry was properly conducted in accordance with the Lokayukta’s report. The High Court held that, since the petitioners had already been exonerated, the writ petition had no further purpose and disposed of the petition.

Issues considered

Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the petitioners have already been exonerated by the departmental inquiry.
Whether the High Court can set aside or interfere with the exoneration order issued pursuant to the Lokayukta’s report.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa‑Lokayuktas Act, 1971 — s. 12(3), 12(4)

Subjects

Lokayukta
departmental inquiry
encroachment
government land
exoneration
writ petition
High Court
Maharashtra

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:39769



                                                       1
                                                                     14-wp-245-2023

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                     BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                     WRIT PETITION NO. 245 OF 2023

                                Purushottam Pundalik Tayade And Others
                                               VERSUS
                     The State Of Maharashtra Through The Secretary And Others
                                                  ...
                     Mr. Mahesh Bhosale, Advocate for the Petitioners
                     Mr. S. N. Kendre, AGP for Respondent-State
                     Ms. M. V. Narwade, Advocate for Respondent nos.3 and 4
                                                  …..
                                          CORAM : AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J.
                                             DATED : 31ST AUGUST, 2026

                     P.C. :-

                     .         On 11.07.2018, a complaint was made to the Hon’ble

                     Lokayukta and Deputy Lokayukta, State of Maharashtra by

                     one Fakirchand Kedari Khandekar i.e. the present respondent

                     no.7. The complaint was filed on account of failure of the then

                     Chief Executive Officer, Deputy Chief Executive Officer and

                     the Block Development Officer of Zilla Parishad, Jalna to

                     inquire into the encroachment caused at the behest of the then

                     Sarpanch       namely   Sangita   Laxman   Shinde   over   40R

                     government and gaothan land at village Tembhurni, Tahsil,

                     Jafrabad, District Jalna. Apparently, the petitioners were not

                     made party to the said complaint.
                                2
                                                   14-wp-245-2023

2.    Subsequently,    an   inquiry      was   conducted   and    a

confidential report was filed under Section 12(3) of the

Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas Act, 1971

wherein the concerned authorities were reported to have

committed    deficiencies   and     negligence    in   preventing

encroachment upon Government and Gaothan lands. It was

therefore reported that further inquiry be completed by the

Competent Authority within a stipulated period and their

compliance report be filed in the Lokayukta Office under

Section 12(4) of the Act of 1971. Feeling aggrieved thereby,

the petitioners are before this Court.

3.    Learned    Advocate Mr. Mahesh bhosale, for                the

petitioners submits that pursuant to this order, the authorities

of the Zilla Parishad initiated a departmental inquiry which

resulted in the exoneration of all the petitioners. He further

adds that although the petitioners were initially held

responsible in the inquiry, they came to be exonerated

thereafter. He candidly submits that exoneration order still

holds the field. It is further contention of Mr. Bhosale that the

illegal activities of which references have been given in the

proceedings before the Lokayukta as also in the departmental
                                 3
                                                   14-wp-245-2023

proceedings had evidently taken place when they were not

posted at village Tembhurni during the relevant period.

4.      Ms. M. V. Narwade, learned Advocate for the BDO has

filed reply affidavit demonstrating the sequence of the facts.

She would submits that the inquiry was properly conducted

pursuant to the orders/report of the Hon’ble Lokayukta Office.

5.      No one present for the complainant/respondent no.7.

6.      In view of the fact that the petitioners are already

exonerated from the charges levelled against them by the Zilla

Parishad Authority, purportedly in the light of the report of

the Hon’ble Lokayukta, the purpose of this petition stands

served.

7.      In view of the above, Writ Petition stands disposed of.



                                     ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. )

Rushikesh/2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…