THE GRAM PANCHAYAT NERE THRU. SARPANCH AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU. SECRETARY AND ORS

                                                                                      903_WP972(R)_26.doc



                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                            WRIT PETITION NO.972 OF 2026

                          Gram Panchayat Nere through its Sarpanch
                          Vandana Jalindhar Jadhav and others               …         Petitioners
                          Vs.
                          State of Maharashtra through Additional Chief
                          Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department and others …         Respondents


                          Mr. Abhijit P. Kulkarni a/w. Mr. Abhishek Roy, Mr. Gourav Shahane and Ms.
                          Shweta Shah i/b. Mr. Shreyas Zarkar for Petitioners.
                          Ms. Neha S. Bhide, Government Pleader a/w. Ms. M. S. Bane, AGP for
                          Respondents - State.
                          Mr. Tushar Sonawane (through VC) for Respondent No.4 - PMRDA.
                          Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. P. G. Lad and Mr. Muralidharan
                          Kalathil for Respondent No.5 - MHADA.


                                                    CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
                                                            SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
                                                    DATE       : JULY 10, 2026

                          ORDER :

                          .     The petitioner Gram Panchayat has filed this petition seeking
                          setting aside of an order dated 13.06.2025 passed by the respondent
                          No.2 - District Collector, Pune, whereby 4 Hectares 24 Ares land was
                          allotted for the Prime Minister Awas Yojana - 2.0 with a specific project
                          name ‘ धानमं ी आवास योजना सवासाठी घरे - २०२२’. The said project is
                          hereinafter referred to as ‘PMAY - 2.0’. According to the petitioner
                          Gram Panchayat, the said impugned order is in the teeth of the policy of
                          the State and it is in the backdrop of an earlier decision manifested in
                          Minutes of Meeting dated 15.02.2022 conducted in the office of the then
                          Minister, directing allotment of the land to the Gram Panchayat for the
                          benefit of the villagers concerning projects such as public parks, schools,
                          Talathi office, etc. The petitioner Gram Panchayat asserts that the subject
MINAL Digitally
       by MINAL
                signed

SANDIP Date:
       SANDIP PARAB
             2026.07.10
PARAB 17:31:35 +0530      land is Gairan land, which ought not to be misutilized as per the whims

                                                                                                   1/16
                                                              903_WP972(R)_26.doc



of the State by ignoring the genuine need of the villagers.

2.    The petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the villagers of the Village Nere.
The petitioner Gram Panchayat is also of Village - Nere, Taluka -
Mulshi, District - Pune and the petitioners together are seeking further
direction for cancelling the aforesaid allotment of land by the impugned
order. The reply affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents have placed
on record another such order, also of the same date as the impugned
order, whereby a further area of 3 Hectares 4 Ares from the said Village -
Nere has been allotted for PMAY - 2.0 Scheme. In effect, the petitioners
are challenging the aforesaid action of the respondent authorities. The
beneficiary of the allotment orders is the respondent No.5 - Maharashtra
Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA), which is to
undertake the project of constructing houses for the weaker section
under the said PMAY - 2.0 Scheme.

3.    The material placed on record by the rival sides shows that on
15.02.2022, a meeting was conducted         in the presence of the then
Minister for Revenue of the respondent State. The Minutes of Meeting
show that a direction was issued to the respondent No.2 Collector and
others in the backdrop of a demand made by the petitioner Gram
Panchayat for Gairan land. It was directed that necessary information be
called from the office of the Zilla Parishad, Pune, to ascertain bona fide
area requirement of the petitioner Gram Panchayat for its proposed
projects and to take action as per rules and regulations. It is the case of
the petitioner Gram Panchayat that thereafter, it pursued the matter
consistently for allotment of land for rural hospital, cultural centre for
women, playground, open gymnasium, water tank, higher secondary
school, etc. While the petitioner Gram Panchayat was pursuing the
matter for the aforesaid projects, it is alleged that suddenly the impugned
orders were issued allotting large tracts of 4 Hectares 24 Ares and 3


                                                                           2/16
                                                            903_WP972(R)_26.doc



Hectares 4 Ares from the Gairan lands of the said Village Nere for the
PMAY - 2.0 Scheme to the respondent No.5 - MHADA.

4.    According to the petitioner Gram Panchayat, the said act was
arbitrary as it was also pursuing its matter with the State authorities for
allotment of Gairan land for the purpose of the aforementioned projects
concerning the welfare of the villagers in the light of the directions
issued by the Minister in the said meeting held on 15.02.2022. The
petitioner Gram Panchayat alleges that this sudden change in the
approach of the respondent State authorities was attributable to the
change in Government and political alignment. It was alleged that the
said action of the respondent State authorities was in the teeth of the
Government Resolution dated 12.07.2011, which was issued in the
backdrop of judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh
and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, (2011) 11 SCC 396. It was
submitted that the consent of the Gram Sabha / Gram Panchayat ought to
have been taken before allotting the said lands to respondent No.5 -
MHADA. In the absence of consent, such Gairan lands could not have
been allotted to respondent No.5 - MHADA.

5.    On this basis, the petitioner Gram Panchayat filed the present writ
petition, wherein notice was issued on 28.01.2026. While issuing notice,
this Court made it clear that on the returnable date, the question of
interim relief would be considered. In the meanwhile, the respondents
took steps for taking physical possession of the said lands and in that
backdrop, the petitioner Gram Panchayat pressed for interim relief on
04.03.2026. A statement was made on behalf of the respondent State
authorities that possession was taken on 04.03.2026, when this writ
petition was listed for consideration. In that light, by order dated
04.03.2026, this Court directed status-quo to be maintained with respect
to the subject lands, meaning thereby that the respondent authorities


                                                                         3/16
                                                           903_WP972(R)_26.doc



would not deal with the subject lands during the pendency of the writ
petition.

6.     In this backdrop, the respondents filed their reply affidavits, to
which the petitioner Gram Panchayat filed its rejoinder affidavit and in
the light of urgency projected on behalf of the respondents, the writ
petition was taken up for hearing.

7.     Mr. Abhijit Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
Gram Panchayat submitted that although the petitioner was not
challenging the authority of the respondent State to deal with the lands,
as ultimately the State is the owner of such Gairan lands, the real
objection was with regard to the manner in which the respondent State
exercised power in the present case to allot the subject lands to
respondent No.5 - MHADA. It was submitted that the petitioner Gram
Panchayat had passed a resolution opposing allotment of the subject
lands for any purpose other than the purpose indicated in the Minutes of
Meeting dated 15.02.2022 recorded in the Chamber of the then Minister.
It was submitted that in the light of the aforesaid resolution of the Gram
Panchayat opposing the allotment of lands to respondent No.5 -
MHADA, by operation of Government Resolution dated 12.07.2011, the
impugned allotments are rendered illegal.

8.     It was submitted that the aforesaid Government Resolution dated
12.07.2011 was issued in the light of the observations made by the
Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal Singh and others Vs. State of
Punjab and others (supra), particularly paragraph 23 thereof. On this
basis, it was submitted that the impugned action of the respondent State
authorities was against the letter and spirit of the said judgement of the
Supreme Court, apart from being arbitrary and unreasonable. It was
emphasized that the petitioner Gram Panchayat is a local self-
government institution, representing the collective will of the local

                                                                        4/16
                                                             903_WP972(R)_26.doc



villagers and their voice cannot be suppressed, particularly in the light of
the fact that a direction was already issued in the said meeting dated
15.02.2022 for taking steps to identify bona fide area requirement of the
petitioner Gram Panchayat for the said projects of rural hospital, schools
and other development projects to be undertaken for the welfare of the
local villagers. It was emphasized that even in the report submitted by
the Sub-Divisional Officer, annexed to the reply affidavit filed on behalf
of respondent No.5 - MHADA, in the ‘Other Rights’ column of the
Revenue Record, the petitioner Gram Panchayat was shown as having
rights in the subject lands. The petitioner Gram Panchayat having
opposed allotment of land to respondent No. 5 MHADA, the respondent
No.2 Collector ought not to have passed the impugned orders. It was
submitted that such allotment, not only violated the aforementioned
Government Resolution dated 12.07.2011 but also Section 22-A of the
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as
‘MLRC’). It was emphasized that as per Section 22-A of MLRC
introduced by way of amendment with effect from 24.07.2017, Gairan
land could be diverted for Central Government and State Government
projects only if no other suitable piece of Government land was
available for the said projects. The said requirement was not satisfied in
the present case and hence, it was submitted that the impugned orders of
allotment deserved to be set aside.

9.    On the other hand, Dr. Milind Sathe, learned Advocate General
appearing on behalf of respondent No.5 - MHADA, submitted that the
contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner Gram Panchayat are
untenable in the face of the provisions of MLRC and particularly, in the
light of Section 40 thereof. It was specifically submitted that Section 22-
A of MLRC is subject to the wide-ranging power vested with the
respondent State under Section 40 thereof with regard to disposal of
Government land. The said issue had come up for consideration before

                                                                          5/16
                                                               903_WP972(R)_26.doc



this Court in the case of Santosh Madhukar Bhondve and others Vs.
State of Maharashtra and others (judgement and order dated
12.09.2024 passed in Writ Petition No.3098 of 2021), wherein this
Court categorically held that the State had the power and authority to
deal with its lands under Section 40 of MLRC and that Section 22-A
thereof was not a fetter on the said absolute authority of the State in
dealing with its lands.

10.   It was submitted that the said judgement of this Court was
followed subsequently in judgements and orders passed in the cases of
Group Gram Panchayat Shirdhon and another Vs. State of Maharashtra
and others (judgement and order dated 22.07.2025 passed in PIL
No.3 of 2005) and Prashant Sunil Kachole and another Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others (judgement and order dated 10.03.2026
passed in Writ Petition No.17617 of 2025).

11.   It was further submitted that the petitioner Gram Panchayat
cannot rely upon Government Resolution dated 12.07.2011, simply for
the reason that the same is merely an executive instruction. Subsequent
thereto, in the year 2017, MLRC was amended to add the statutory
provision of Section 22-A and it would certainly override the said
executive instruction. In any case, in the aforementioned judgements of
this Court, the interpretation of Section 22-A in the light of Section 40 of
MLRC was already rendered, which was against the position sought to
be canvassed on behalf of the petitioner Gram Panchayat. On this basis,
it was submitted that the petition deserved to be dismissed.

12.   Apart from this, it was submitted that the subject lands belonging
to the respondent State are reserved in the regional plan for public
housing and on this ground also, the petition deserved to be dismissed.
By the impugned orders, the lands have been allotted to respondent No.5
- MHADA for the purpose for which the lands are reserved and

                                                                            6/16
                                                            903_WP972(R)_26.doc



therefore, the petitioner Gram Panchayat cannot claim any right therein.
It was further submitted that, as per the proposal of the petitioner Gram
Panchayat, which was discussed in the said meeting dated 15.02.2022,
even the petitioner Gram Panchayat intended to use the Gairan land for
purposes other than grazing of cattle. In any case, it was submitted that
the Minutes of Meeting dated 15.02.2022 did not manifest any
crystallized right in favour of the petitioner Gram Panchayat, and
therefore, the petition deserved to be dismissed.

13.   As regards reliance on judgement of the Supreme Court in the
case of Jagpal Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others
(supra), it was submitted that in the said case, the Supreme Court was
concerned with indiscriminate encroachment of common lands of Gram
Panchayats by private parties and rampant misuse of such lands. The
facts of the present case are materially different from the case dealt with
by the Supreme Court, and therefore, it was submitted that the petitioner
Gram Panchayat cannot place reliance on the said judgement of the
Supreme Court.

14.   Ms. Neha Bhide, learned Government Pleader appeared on behalf
of respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. the State authorities and supported the
contentions raised by the learned Advocate General. Mr. Tushar
Sonawane, learned counsel appeared for respondent No.4 - Pune
Metropolitan Region Development Authority (PMRDA) and he also
supported the contentions raised on behalf of respondent No.5.

15.   We have considered the rival submissions. The principal attack on
behalf of the petitioner Gram Panchayat on the action of the respondent
authorities in allotting the subject lands to respondent No.5 - MHADA,
is based on an assertion that the consent of the petitioner Gram
Panchayat was necessary before any such allotment of lands could be
made. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner Gram Panchayat that the

                                                                         7/16
                                                            903_WP972(R)_26.doc



said assertion is justified by the contents of Government Resolution
dated 12.07.2011 and Section 22-A of MLRC. It is further asserted that a
direction already having been issued by the concerned Minister in the
aforesaid meeting dated 15.02.2022, for undertaking necessary exercise
as per Rules for ascertaining bona fide area requirement of the petitioner
Gram Panchayat for its welfare projects, the respondent No.2 - Collector
could not have changed his stand to suddenly allot the subject lands to
respondent No.5 - MHADA. This is alleged to be an arbitrary act,
smacking of political pressure being used on Government machinery.

16.   While considering the said contentions, we are really concerned
with the question as to whether the impugned actions of the respondent
State authorities can be said to be illegal or unauthorized in any manner.
The Government Resolution dated 12.07.2011 was issued in the
backdrop of the aforesaid judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of
Jagpal Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others (supra). As a
matter of fact, the said Government Resolution refers to the said
judgement of the Supreme Court. Therefore, it would be appropriate to
consider the backdrop in which the Supreme Court rendered the said
judgement in the case of Jagpal Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab
and others (supra). A perusal of the said judgement shows that the
Court was concerned with trespassers, who illegally encroached upon
Gram Panchayat lands by using money and muscle power in collusion
with Government officials and in some cases even the Gram Panchayat,
thereby adversely affecting the rights of villagers in such lands meant for
common use. This is evident from the discussion in the said judgement
of the Supreme Court, wherein it was observed that the appellants were
neither owners nor tenants and that they were rank trespassers in such
common lands of the concerned Gram Panchayat. It is in this backdrop
that the Supreme Court in its judgement observed as follows:-



                                                                         8/16
                                                              903_WP972(R)_26.doc



      “4. What we have witnessed since Independence, however,
      is that in large parts of the country this common village land
      has been grabbed by unscrupulous persons using muscle power,
      money power or political clout, and in many States now there is
      not an inch of such land left for the common use of the people
      of the village, though it may exist on paper. People with power
      and pelf operating in villages all over India systematically
      encroached upon communal lands and put them to uses totally
      inconsistent with its original character, for personal
      aggrandizement at the cost of the village community. This was
      done with active connivance of the State authorities and local
      powerful vested interests and goondas. This appeal is a glaring
      example of this lamentable state of affairs.
          *             *             *             *              *
      6.     It is undisputed that the appellants herein are neither the
      owner nor the tenants of the land in question which is recorded
      as a pond situated in village Rohar Jagir, Tehsil and District
      Patiala. They are in fact trespassers and unauthorized occupants
      of the land relating Khewat Khatuni No. 115/310, Khasra No.
      369 (84-4) in the said village. They appear to have filled in the
      village pond and made constructions thereon.
          *             *             *             *              *
      13. We find no merit in this appeal. The appellants herein
      were trespassers who illegally encroached on to the Gram
      Panchayat land by using muscle power/money power and in
      collusion with the officials and even with the Gram Panchayat.
      We are of the opinion that such kind of blatant illegalities must
      not be condoned. Even if the appellants have built houses on
      the land in question they must be ordered to remove their
      constructions, and possession of the land in question must be
      handed back to the Gram Panchayat. Regularizing such
      illegalities must not be permitted because it is Gram Sabha land
      which must be kept for the common use of villagers of the
      village.”

17.   Perusal of the above-quoted paragraphs of the said judgement of
the Supreme Court clearly shows that the thrust of the observations was
against private parties rampantly and illegally trespassing into the
common lands belonging to the Gram Panchayat. In this backdrop, the
following direction was issued by the Supreme Court in the said
judgement in the case of Jagpal Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab


                                                                           9/16
                                                               903_WP972(R)_26.doc



and others (supra):-
       “23. Before parting with this case we give directions to all the
       State Governments in the country that they should prepare
       schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorized occupants of Gram
       Sabha / Gram Panchayat / Poramboke / Shamlat land and these
       must be restored to the Gram Sabha / Gram Panchayat for the
       common use of villagers of the village. For this purpose the
       Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/Union Territories in
       India are directed to do the needful, taking the help of other
       senior officers of the Governments. The said scheme should
       provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupant, after
       giving him a show cause notice and a brief hearing. Long
       duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in
       making constructions thereon or political connections must not
       be treated as a justification for condoning this illegal act or for
       regularizing the illegal possession. Regularization should only
       be permitted in exceptional cases e.g. where lease has been
       granted under some Government notification to landless
       labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes,
       or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public
       utility on the land.”

18.   The Government Resolution dated 12.07.2011 was issued in the
backdrop of the said judgment. A perusal of the same shows that even in
the said judgement, enough scope was left for utilizing such Gairan
lands for Central Government and State Governments Schemes of public
utility and public purpose. In the context of utilization of Gairan land for
such purpose, it was stipulated that a consent resolution of the Gram
Sabha / Gram Panchayat should be obtained. The said Government
Resolution has operated in the backdrop of the observations made by the
Supreme Court in the aforementioned judgement in the case of Jagpal
Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others (supra). But, it is
specifically contended by the learned Advocate General that the said
Government Resolution, being an executive instruction, has been
superseded by insertion of Section 22-A in MLRC by amendment with
effect from 26.04.2017. It is asserted that in the face of the statutory
provision being inserted, Gairan lands can certainly be utilized for
public purpose and public projects of the Central Government and State

                                                                           10/16
                                                             903_WP972(R)_26.doc



Governments, as also statutory authorities. In this backdrop, it would be
appropriate to refer to Section 22-A of MLRC, which reads as follows:-
      “22A. Prohibition on diversion of use of Gairan Land.— (1)
      The land set apart by the Collector for free pasturage of village
      cattle (hereinafter referred to as “the Gairan Land”) shall not
      be diverted, granted or leased for any other use, except in the
      circumstances provided in sub-sections (2) or (3), as the case
      may be.

      (2) The Gairan land may be diverted, granted or leased for a
      public purpose or public project of the Central Government or
      the State Government or any statutory authority or any public
      authority or undertaking under the Central Government or the
      State Government (hereinafter in this section referred to as
      “Public Authority”), if no other suitable piece of Government
      land is available for such public purpose or public project.

      (3) The Gairan land may be diverted, granted or leased for a
      project of a project proponent, not being a Public Authority,
      when such Gairan land is unavoidably required for such
      project and such project proponent transfers to the State
      Government, compensatory land as provided in sub-sections
      (4) and (5).

      (4) The compensatory land to be transferred to the State
      Government under sub-section (3) shall be in the same revenue
      village have area equal to twice the area of the Gairan land and
      its value shall not be less than the value of the Gairan land so
      allotted under sub-section (3) :
             Provided that, the area of compensatory land shall have
      to be suitably increased, wherever necessary, so as to make its
      value equal to the value of the Gairan land so allotted under
      sub-section (3).

      (5) The compensatory land to be transferred to the State
      Government under sub-section (3) shall, notwithstanding
      anything contained in any other law, rule or orders made
      thereunder, be assigned by the Collector under section 22 for
      the use only of free pasturage of village cattle or for grass or
      fodder reserve.

      (6) The powers of diversion, grant, lease of Gairan land
      under this section shall be vested in the State Government :
             Provided that, notwithstanding anything contained in
      section 330A, the powers of the State Government under sub-
      section (3) shall not be delegated to any officer or other
      authority sub-ordinate to it.

                                                                          11/16
                                                          903_WP972(R)_26.doc



      (7) Notwithstanding anything in sub-sections (1) to (6) or
      any other provision of this Act, Gram Sabhas shall be
      competent to preserve, safeguard and manage Gairan land in
      Scheduled Areas ;
             Provided that, no Gairan land in the Scheduled Areas
      shall be diverted or disposed of without the prior informed
      consent of the Gram Sabhas concerned.”

19.   A perusal of the above-quoted provision does indicate that Gairan
lands can be diverted towards public purpose and public projects of the
Central Government, State Government and statutory authorities. There
are certain stipulations engrafted in the said provision, including a
requirement to examine as to whether no other suitable piece of
Government land is available for the proposed public purpose and the
Scheme of the Central / State Government. The insistence of the
petitioner Gram Panchayat that its consent resolution was a sine qua non
for allotment of land to respondent No.5 - MHADA for construction of
houses for weaker section, does not appear to be supported by the
statutory scheme.

20.   In any case, we find that a Division Bench of this Court
considered the issue of interplay between Section 22-A of MLRC and
Section 40 thereof in the case of Santosh Madhukar Bhondve and
others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra). At this stage, it
would be appropriate to refer to Section 40 of MLRC, which reads as
follows:-
      “40. Saving of powers of Government.— Nothing contained
      in any provision of this Code shall derogate from the right of
      the State Government to dispose of any land, the property of
      Government, on such terms and conditions as it deems fit.”

21.   In the said judgement of this Court in the case of Santosh
Madhukar Bhondve and others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others
(supra), much emphasis was placed on the words ‘nothing contained in
any provision of this Code’ used in the above-quoted Section 40 of

                                                                      12/16
                                                            903_WP972(R)_26.doc



MLRC. In that context, this Court made the following observations:-
      “24. Section 40 of the MLRC, 1966 as extracted above, vests
      almost absolute right in the State Government to dispose of
      any land or property of the Government on such terms and
      conditions as it deems fit. The language in which Section 40 is
      couched leaves no room of doubt that the right of the State
      Government to dispose of any of its land or property is
      irrespective of any provision of MLRC, 1966 for the reason of
      opening phrase occurring in Section 40 is ‘nothing contained
      in any provision of this Code’. Thus, we are of the opinion that
      by operation of Section 40 of the MLRC, 1966, the State
      Government is vested with right to dispose of any land of the
      Government on such terms and conditions which are to be
      determined by it irrespective of any other provision available
      in MRLC, 1966 including Section 22A. Such, an interpretation
      of Section 40 qua Section 22A of the MLRC, 1966 is based on
      the rationale that the Government is the absolute owner of its
      own property and land and hence, putting any fetter on the
      right of the Government to dispose of any property on the
      terms and conditions to be determined by it, in our opinion,
      will not be permissible and therefore, in the view of the Court,
      notwithstanding the prohibition contained in Section 22A of
      the MLRC, 1966, the Government still will have all the
      authority and power to dispose of its land.”

22.   This position was followed in the subsequent judgements of this
Court in the cases of Group Gram Panchayat Shirdhon and another
Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra) and Prashant Sunil
Kachole and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra).
The judgements in the cases of Santosh Madhukar Bhondve and
others Vs. State of Maharashtra and others (supra) and Prashant
Sunil Kachole and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and others
(supra) specifically concerned allotment of land for construction of
houses under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana. Thus, we find that on
similar facts, in the said judgements, this Court rejected contentions
similar to those raised on behalf of the petitioner Gram Panchayat in the
present case.

23.   In this backdrop, we find that the respondent State was well


                                                                         13/16
                                                            903_WP972(R)_26.doc



within its powers to invoke Section 40 of MLRC, while issuing the
impugned order allotting lands to respondent No.5 - MHADA for
construction of houses for weaker section. The impugned orders dated
13.06.2025 allotting such lands specifically invoked Section 40 of
MLRC. Hence, we do not find any substance in the contentions raised
on behalf of the petitioner Gram Panchayat, including the contention that
the ‘Other Rights’ column in the Revenue Record shows the name of the
petitioner Gram Panchayat in the context of the subject lands. It is
undisputed that the respondent State is the owner of the said lands and
therefore, merely because in the ‘Other Rights’ column, the name of the
petitioner Gram Panchayat is mentioned, cannot take its case any further.

24.   Apart from this, it is also undisputed that in the regional plan, the
subject lands are reserved for ‘public housing’. Therefore, the
respondent State by allotting the subject lands to respondent No.5
MHADA for construction of houses for weaker section, has ensured
utilization of the said lands for the purpose for which they are reserved.
We also find that the petitioner Gram Panchayat cannot claim any
crystallized right merely on the basis of the Minutes of Meeting dated
15.02.2022, recorded in the Chamber of the then Revenue Minister. The
said document only shows that a direction was issued for ascertaining
the bona fide area requirement of the Gram Panchayat for its projects as
per Rules and to take further action in the matter. Therefore, the
petitioner Gram Panchayat cannot claim any vested right in the lands in
question.

25.   We are also unable to agree with the petitioner Gram Panchayat
that the impugned action of the respondent State is against the letter and
spirit of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Jagpal
Singh and others Vs. State of Punjab and others (supra), for the
reason that in the said case, the Supreme Court was dealing with rank


                                                                        14/16
                                                             903_WP972(R)_26.doc



trespassers in common lands of the Gram Panchayat, who had rampantly
misused the common land for private benefit by making illegal and
unauthorized constructions. The said case is clearly distinguishable on
facts, and therefore, the petitioner Gram Panchayat cannot claim any
support from the said judgement for its contentions.

26.   The documents on record also do not show any procedural
illegality on the part of the respondent authorities in making the
allotment in favour of respondent No.5 - MHADA and we are in
agreement of the specific contention raised on behalf of the respondent
MHADA that the proposed construction does subserve public purpose. It
is undisputed that the allotment of lands has been made for a Central
Government Scheme i.e. PMAY - 2.0 Scheme for constructing houses
for economically weaker sections of the society and hence, the statutory
requirement under Section 22-A of MLRC is also duly satisfied.

27.   In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present
petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. The interim order is vacated.

28.   Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

29.   At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
Gram Panchayat prayed for extending the interim order for a specific
period of time, but, considering the reasons recorded in this order while
dismissing the Writ Petition, we are not inclined to grant the prayer.
Accordingly, the prayer is rejected.

30.   The learned counsel for the petitioner Gram Panchayat submitted
that this Court may consider directing the respondent authorities to
consider the proposal for specific projects as indicated in the documents
on record. The learned Advocate General submits that if a fresh
representation is made on behalf of the petitioner Gram Panchayat, it can
be considered in accordance with law.

                                                                         15/16
                                                         903_WP972(R)_26.doc



31.    Accordingly, the petitioner Gram Panchayat is granted liberty to
make a representation, which shall be decided by the respondent State
authorities in accordance with the law.




(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.)                    (MANISH PITALE, J.)




Minal Parab




                                                                     16/16