Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Bom) 944

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
G. S. KULKARNI, AARTI SATHE, JJ.
Mr. Shivdarshan Guruprasad Shukla - Appellant
Vs.
Mr. Radhesham Sarjuprasad Pardeshi Since deceased through his L.Rs. - Respondent
Letters Patent Appeal No. 110 of 2013 In Writ Petition No. 11106 of 2011 With Letters Patent Appeal No. 318 of 2013 In Writ Petition No. 11106 of 2011
Decided On : 20-04-2026
Advocate Appeared :
For the Appellant : Mr. Y. S. Jahagirdar, Senior Advocate i/b. Shriniwas Patwardhan, Mr. S. M. Railkar
For the Respondent : Ms. Savita Prabhune, AGP

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Y. S. Jahagirdar, Shriniwas Patwardhan, S. M. Railkar
For the Respondents: Savita Prabhune

Once government land is forfeited for illegal occupation and vests in State, court cannot direct re-auction or allow prior occupants' participation, as State holds absolute prerogative to use for public purpose.

Headnote:(A) Land Laws - Government land allotment on new and impartible tenure for cultivation - Putting third parties in possession - Application for eviction under relevant tenancy provision rejected - Permission for non-agricultural conversion granted - Forfeiture and resumption of land for breach of grant terms upheld up to revisional stage - Withdrawal of writ by occupants with liberty for regularization - Subsequent regularization order by Minister of Revenue held invalid - Single Judge dismisses writ against regularization but directs State to re-auction, re-allot land allowing occupant participation - Division Bench holds: once illegality of occupation established and land vested in State, Court cannot direct compulsory auction or recognize any right in occupants to participate therein, as that encroaches on executive function; State free to use land for public purpose as deemed fit. (Paras 9 to 13)

Facts of the case:
Land allotted in 1951 to predecessor of original petitioners on new impartible tenure. Predecessor died in 1958; heirs put original respondents in possession in 1974. Eviction application rejected; non-agricultural permission granted to respondents. Land forfeited in 1984 for breach; appeals and revisions dismissed. Writs filed; one withdrawn with liberty to regularize. Minister regularized occupation in 2011. Writ against regularization dismissed by Single Judge, who directed re-auction with participation rights. Both sides appeal impugned order.

Findings of Court:
Impugned order correct in holding land belongs to State and regularization invalid, but erroneous in directing re-auction and allowing occupant participation. State directed to resume possession within two months; free thereafter to use for public purposes.

Issues: Whether Single Judge could direct State to re-auction government land and permit prior illegal occupants to participate; scope of rights over forfeited government land post-illegality confirmation.

Ratio Decidendi: Once government land forfeiture for illegal occupation upheld and land vests in State, Court cannot mandate disposal method like auction or accord implicit rights to occupants by allowing participation, as this usurps executive prerogative over public property usage. Directions critiquing executive but prescribing policy contradict rule of law emphasis. (Paras 10, 11)

Result: Letters Patent Appeals dismissed; impugned order set aside to extent of re-auction and participation directions.

Table of Content
1. land allotment history and forfeiture proceedings summary (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. parties argue for possession rights and auction priority (Para 5 , 6 , 7)
3. court cannot mandate state land auction or occupant participation (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. state resumes land for public purpose use (Para 12 , 13 , 14)

JUDGMENT :

(PER: AARTI SATHE, J.)

1. These two Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the Judgment and Order dated 28^th September 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 11106 of 2011, disposing of the Writ Petition filed by Appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No. 318 of 2013 i.e. the Original Petitioner on the ground that the property bearing Survey No. 110-A situated at village Saravali, Taluka Palghar, District Thane (hereinafter referred to as “the subject land”) belongs to the State Government and was illegally occupied, and hence it was directed that the State Government could resume the land back and take all steps in accordance with law, irrespective of any order of occupancy in favour of Original Respondents in the said Writ Petition i.e. Appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No 110 of 2013, and thus the State Government could decide depending on all facts and circumstances as to allot the subject land in dispute by re-auctioning the subject land and allowing the Original Respondents to participate in the bidding process. The parties will be referred as Original Petitioner and Original Respondents as per Writ Petition No. 11106 of 2011.

2. Since both the Letters Patent Appeals have been directed against the same impugned order, they can be conveniently disposed of by the present Judgment. However, the facts which are relevant in both the Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 110 of 2013 and 318 of 2013 are summarized below: -

i. The subject land was allotted on 19^th March 1951 to the father of Original Petitioners, namely, Sarjuprasad Pardeshi by the Collector, Thane. The said allotment was on a new and impartible tenure for cultivation of land.

ii. On 26^th November 1958, the father of Original Petitioners expired, leaving behind his wife Annardevi, i.e., the mother of the Original Petitioners. Sometime in the year 1974-75, the mother of the Original Petitioners expired, leaving the Original Petitioners as the heirs of Sarjuprasad Pardeshi.

iii. On 21^st October 1974, the Original Petitioners, by executing a deed put the Original Respondents in possession of the subject land. Thereafter, on 15^th January 1978, the Original Petitioners filed an Application under Section 84(c) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short “BTAL Act”), seeking summary eviction of the Original Respondents, which was rejected by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dahanu. Pursuant to the aforesaid rejection, the Collector, Thane granted permission to the Original Respondents to convert part of the subject land from agricultural use to non-agricultural use. Thereafter, on 12^th June 1984, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Dahanu passed an order of even date, and forfeited and resumed the subject land, as according to him, the same was in breach of certain terms of the grant.

iv. On 30^th March 1987, the appeals filed by the Original Petitioners and the Original Respondents before the Additional Collector, Thane against the order dated 12^th June 1984 challenging the forfeiture of the subject land by the Sub- Divisional Officer, Dahanu were dismissed. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid dismissal, the Original Petitioners and the Original Respondents filed further appeals before the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, which were also dismissed on 7^th September 1987. Both the Original Petitioners and the Original Respondents filed revision applications against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division before the State Government, which were rejected. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid rejection both the Original Petitioners and the Original Respondents filed Writ Petition No. 1944 of 1996 and Writ P

Click Here to Read the rest of this document