Bombay High Court

BANDHKAM KAMGAR VA MAGASVARGIYA SAHAKARI GRUHANIRMAN SANSTHA MARYADIT THR. ITS CHAIRMANversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. THE SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT AND ORS

Disposal: Dismissed

Holding

The writ of mandamus does not lie as the petitioner lacks a vested right; the petition is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner, a cooperative society, filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that a Kabulayat dated 12 June 1925, admitting 16,390 sq. metres of land, is illegal and void because it was not signed by the Patel and Village Accountant as required under the Bombay Land Revenue Rules, 1921. The petition also asked for forfeiture of the land, nullity of related development agreements, and quashing of a Government Order dated 19 August 2016 that granted residential land use permission. The Court held that a writ of mandamus can be issued only when the petitioner has a vested right, which the petitioner did not possess with respect to the 1925 allotment to third parties. The Court observed that while the government may have acted contrary to statutory provisions, the appropriate remedy would be a public interest litigation, not a writ petition. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as misconceived.

Issues considered

Whether the petitioner has a vested right to invoke a writ of mandamus challenging the 1925 land allotment.
Whether the absence of signatures of the Patel and Village Accountant on the Kabulayat renders it void under the Bombay Land Revenue Rules, 1921.
Whether the Government Order granting residential land use permission can be quashed on the ground of procedural irregularity.
Whether a writ petition is the appropriate remedy or a public interest litigation is required.

Legislation cited

Bombay Land Revenue Rules — s. 1921

Subjects

land revenue
Kabulayat
mandamus
writ petition
public interest litigation
land allotment
statutory compliance
government order

Judgment

2026:BHC-KOL:8659-DB

21-WP-7849-2024(C).doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 7849 OF 2024

Bandhkam Kamgar Va Magasvargiya Sahakari ...Petitioner
Gruhanirman Sanstha Maryadit
Through Its Chairman Mr. Ganesh D. Boddu
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondents
——————
Mr. Ramdas Sabban for the Petitioner.
Ms. Prajakta Kamble a/w Mr. Harshad Sathe i/by Mr. Saurabh Butala for
Respondent Nos.3.1 to 3.3.
Mr. Avesh A. Ghadge i/by Mr. Sarthak S. diwan for Respondent No.4.
Mr. Akshay Kulkarni for Respondent Nos.18, 19 & 22.
Mr. Siddheshwar B. Kalel, AGP for the Respondent-State.
——————
CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH &
NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.

DATE : SEPTEMBER 08, 2026.

P. C. :

1. By the present Petition, the Petitioner seeks a declaration that

the impugned Kabulayat in Form-H dated 12 th June, 1925, admitting

16,390 square metres, is illegal, null and void ab initio, as the Kabulayat

is not subscribed by the Patel and Village Accountant, as per the

Bombay Land Revenue Rules, 1921, and also seeks forfeiture of the land

and its allotment to the Petitioner-Society. The Petition also seeks a

declaration that the Development Agreement, Power of Attorney, Sale

Jamadar-SL 1 of 2
21-WP-7849-2024(C).doc

Deeds, etc., between Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, be declared null and

void and to quash the Government Order dated 19th August, 2016, which

illegally granted 15,903 square metres residential land user permission,

even though Respondent No.4, by an application dated 12 th January,

2001, had specifically applied only for 8,192.50 square metres

residential land change user permission.

2. The Petition, in fact, seeks a writ of mandamus against the

Respondents. For a mandamus to lie, there must be a right which is

vested in the Petitioner. Merely because the Petitioner is also interested

in the allotment of the land cannot be construed as a vested right to

challenge the allotment made in favour of the third parties in 1925 and

to seek the relief of forfeiture of the allotted land. A writ of mandamus

cannot be issued based on allegation of illegal allotment by the

Government authorities in favour of third parties without corresponding

vested right in the Petitioner.

3. In the event, the Government authorities have acted contrary to

the statutory provisions or rules and regulations, it is open for the

Petitioner to file Public Interest Litigation. However, writ Petition, in our

opinion, would not lie. The Petition is, therefore, dismissed as

misconceived.

[NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]

Jamadar-SL 2 of 2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…