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.

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. 13468 of 2025, the petitioners claim regularization over lands bearing Gut Nos. 33, 34 and 71, situated at Village Gadadgavan, Tq. Jintur, Dist. Parbhani. According to the petitioners, the said lands are gairan lands belonging to the State.

3. The petitioners aver that they belong to Scheduled Caste communities, are landless agricultural labourers, and fall below the poverty line. They state that they have allegedly been in occupation of the government lands for several decades and, therefore, their encroachments deserve regularization in terms of the aforesaid Government Resolution. They further contend that they have submitted several representations from time to time, some are as far back as the 1980’s, they requested regularization, but the authorities failed to take any decision.

4. In Writ Petition No. 13468 of 2025, an additional fact emerges that portions of the very lands encroached upon by the petitioners were mutated and transferred to the Forest Department in the year 1989. Even thereafter, the petitioners claim that their occupation ought to be regularized under the 1991 policy.

5. Learned AGP appearing for the State opposes the petitions contending that the petitioners are admitted encroachers upon Government land and no vested or statutory right exists in their favour which would warrant exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. It is further argued that repeated representations made and allegedly not decided for decades cannot create a right in favour of encroachers. The AGP relies upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court holding that encroachment upon Government land cannot be directed to be regularized and such lands must be restored for public interest and public purpose.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGP for the State and have perused the material placed on record. Ordinarily, in a case where representations are pending consideration, this Court may direct the authorities to decide them. However, the present matter concerns gairan land, which is property of the State held for public purpose, and any direction to even consider regularization must be examined strictly in the light of the Hon’ble Supreme Court jurisprudence on illegal encroachment.

7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in decision of Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 396, has held that public lands, village common lands, grazing lands, forest lands, tanks, and water bodies cannot be permitted to be encroached upon, nor can the Court issue directions for regularization of illegal occupation. The Supreme Court emphatically held that:

Encroachers have no equity in their favour.

Government land must be protected and restored to its original public use.

Courts must not pass orders which encourage encroachment or c