Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
VIBHA KANKANWADI, HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR
Pundlik Sambhaji Telange – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra Through Secretary Revenue and Forest Development Mantralaya – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek regularization of land encroachments. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. state opposes claims based on legal rights. (Para 5) |
| 3. supreme court prohibits regularization of illegal encroachments. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. government policy and statutory protections limit encroachments. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. delay in claims affects petitioners' rights. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. no relief due to non-compliance with legal requirements. (Para 14) |
| 7. both petitions dismissed without costs. (Para 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT :
Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.
1. Both these writ petitions, involving identical questions of fact and law, are being disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioners in these petitions invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to regularize their alleged encroachments upon gairan (grazing) land on the basis of the Government Resolution dated 28.11.1991 issued by the State of Maharashtra.
2. In Writ Petition No. 13465 of 2025, the petitioners seek regularization of their occupation over land bearing Gut No. 224, situated at Village Aasadvan, Tq. and Dist. Nanded. In Writ Petition No
Encroachment on government land cannot be regularized under Article 226 without meeting legal criteria, emphasizing that delay and lack of eligibility undermine claims for land tenure.
Limited scope of review applications and the need for compliance with government policies and regulations regarding encroachments on government land.
Regularization of unauthorized occupation of government land cannot be claimed as a matter of right, especially when public interest is involved, and applications must be evaluated based on the law i....
Encroachers cannot claim regularization of land as a matter of right; discretion lies with the Collector to evaluate hardship based on existing land holdings.
Unauthorized occupation of government land cannot create rights, and mere communal use does not justify settlement under the OPLE Act, especially when the land is earmarked for public developmental p....
Writ petition not entertained due to existing committees under G.O. for government land protection; liberty granted to approach authorities.
Unauthorized occupation of government land does not confer entitlement to settlement unless criteria specified by government policies are met.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
