Section 40 of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code overrides Section 22A restrictions on Gairan land diversion, empowering State to allot for public purposes like PMAY housing after procedural compliances, rehabilitation, and alternates.

JUDGMENT :

M.S. KARNIK, J.

1. Invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek to challenge the order dated 01/06/2025 passed by respondent no.2 –the Collector, Pune and the Government Resolution dated 15/10/2024 issued by the respondent no.1- State of Maharashtra. Further relief is sought for a direction to respondent no.1- State of Maharashtra to hold necessary inquiry in respect of representations made by the petitioners and subject to outcome of such inquiry, to initiate necessary action against the concerned persons. It is further prayed for a direction to the respondents to cancel the reservation/residential scheme which is being implemented by the respondents on the “Gairan Land” (grazing land).

The facts of the case in brief are as under:

2. Petitioner no.1 is the resident of Rohkal, Taluka-Khed, District- Pune. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Collector of Pune passed an order of transfer of the grazing land without consulting respondent no.3-Pune Metropolitan Region Development Authority (‘PMRDA’, for short) which is the planning authority. Respondent no. 4- the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (‘MHADA’, for short) is the beneficiary of the said transfer. It is the petitioners’ case that respondent no.5-the Deputy Conservator of Forests (Territorial), Junnar has given consent without the gram sabha approval. It is the petitioners’ case that respondent no.2 issued the order of transferring the grazing land for implementation of the residential scheme which was to be implemented under the supervision of respondent no.4. The scheme was to be implemented on the land situated at Gat No. 220, Rohkal, Taluka-Khed, District-Pune. The land in question is a grazing land. A portion of the said land is inhabited by the Scheduled Tribe (‘ST’, for short) and Scheduled Caste (‘SC’, for short) community and without taking the villagers in confidence, it was decided that the ST community be evicted from the subject land. It is also the case of the petitioners that around 5000 trees planted by social forestry are likely to be cut. The case of the petitioners is that the said transfer is contrary to the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (‘Code of 1966’, for short). It is further submitted that without finalizing the list of beneficiaries and without confirming a single beneficiary, MHADA wants to implement the ‘Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana Scheme- Urban 2.0’ (‘PMAY’, for short) which is illegal. The petitioners therefore preferred a representation before the concerned authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioners therefore submitted that the action on the part of the respondents of transferring the grazing land is illegal and contrary to the provisions of law as it affects the interests of not only the villagers but is also prejudicial to the inhabitants belonging to the SC and ST community.

3. We have heard Mr.Ugle, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Sakhadeo, learned counsel for respondent no. 3 and Dr.Milind Sathe, learned Advocate General appearing for respondent no.4 and learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent-State. Perused the affidavit in replies filed by the respondents.

4. Though an objection as to the maintainability of this writ petition was raised challenging the locus of the petitioners, we proceed to consider the submissions on meri