Gram Panchayat's Consent Not Required To Divert Gairan Land For PMAY; State Has Near-Absolute Power U/S 40 Maharashtra Land Revenue Code: Bombay High Court
The Court noted that Section 40 of the Code vests state with near-absolute power to dispose of its own land, overriding restriction under Section 22-A.
Justice Manish Pitale, Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat, Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has held that Section 40 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 vests the State Government with an almost absolute right to dispose of its own land on terms it deems fit, irrespective of the restrictions on diversion of Gairan (grazing) land contained in Section 22-A of the Code.
The Court said that a Gram Panchayat's consent or opposition cannot operate as a fetter on this power when land is allotted to a statutory authority for a public housing project.
The Court further held that the landmark Supreme Court decision in Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab and others, (2011) 11 SCC 396, which directed eviction of illegal encroachers from common village lands, was concerned with private trespassers misusing Gram Panchayat land for personal gain, and does not apply to a scheme where the State itself diverts Gairan land through a statutory authority for a Central Government public housing project such as PMAY 2.0.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat noting Section 22-A of MLRC, observed, “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”.
Advocate Abhijit P. Kulkarni appeared for the petitioner, and Senior Advocate Dr. Milind Sathe appeared for the respondent.
The petitioner, Gram Panchayat of Village Nere, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune, along with two villagers, challenged an order dated June 13, 2025 passed by the District Collector, Pune, allotting 4 Hectares 24 Ares of Gairan land to MHADA for construction of houses under PMAY 2.0.
A connected order of the same date allotted a further 3 Hectares 4 Ares from the same village for the scheme. The Gram Panchayat contended that this allotment was contrary to Minutes of a Meeting dated February 15, 2022 held before the then Revenue Minister, which had directed identification of land for the Gram Panchayat's own welfare projects, and that the sudden allotment to MHADA reflected political pressure following a change in government.
It relied on a Government Resolution dated July 12, 2011, issued pursuant to the Supreme Court's judgment in Jagpal Singh, to argue that Gram Sabha consent was mandatory before diverting such land.
Notice was issued on January 28, 2026, and after the State took physical possession of the land, the Court directed status quo by order dated March 04, 2026. The petition was thereafter heard on merits along with reply and rejoinder affidavits from the State, PMRDA, and MHADA.
The Court found that Jagpal Singh dealt with rank trespassers who had illegally encroached upon common land using "muscle power, money power" in collusion with officials, a factual matrix wholly distinguishable from the present case involving a State-sanctioned allotment to a statutory housing authority.
The Court also noted that the Government Resolution of 2011 was merely an executive instruction superseded by the subsequent statutory insertion of Section 22-A in 2017, and that the subject land was in any event reserved for "public housing" under the regional plan.
Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed, and the interim status quo order was vacated. The Court granted the petitioner Gram Panchayat liberty to make a fresh representation to the State authorities for allotment of land for its own welfare projects, to be considered in accordance with law.
Cause Title: Gram Panchayat Nere through its Sarpanch Vandana Jalindhar Jadhav and Others v. State of Maharashtra through Additional Chief Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department and others Writ Petition No.972 Of 2026
Appearances:
Petitioners: Abhijit P. Kulkarni, Abhishek Roy, Gourav Shahane and Shweta Shah, Shreyas Zarkar, Advocates.
Respondents: Neha S. Bhide, Government Pleader, M. S. Bane, AGP, Tushar Sonawane, Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate, P. G. Lad and Muralidharan Kalathil, Advocates.