1. The Petitioners have challenged the Judgment and Order dated 28.04.2014 passed by Respondent No. 5, the Minister. According to the Petitioners, the Minister had no jurisdiction or authority under any provision of law to pass such an order. By the impugned order, the Minister converted the suit land from Devsthan Inam Class III to Class I Old Tenure. The Minister further directed Respondent No. 3, the Tahasildar, to declare Respondent Nos. 1(a) to 1(d) as owners of the suit land under Section 32-G read with Section 70-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (BTAL Act). Permission was also granted under Section 43 of the BTAL Act for transferring the said land. Apart from this, the Minister directed the Tahasildar to start the necessary proceedings within three months, remove the name of Bhairavdev from the 7/12 extract and enter the names of Respondent Nos. 1(a) to 1(d) as owners of the suit land. The Petitioners contend that all these directions were issued without any authority of law.

2. The suit lands were granted on 21 May 1862 by the then Government to Shri Bhairavdev, the deity, through its manager, Govinda Bin Ramji Koli, as Class III Inam Land. This grant was recorded in the Alienation Register at Serial No. 1440. Accordingly, the name of Shri Bhairavdev Devsthan was entered in the 7/12 extract of the suit land. The revenue records show that the name of the deity has continued to appear in the 7/12 extract from a period prior to 1929 till date. The villagers of village Rihe have been looking after and maintaining the temple of Bhairavdev for a long period. Subsequently, the Petitioners also continued to look after the said temple. The villagers are devotees of Shri Bhairavdev and, according to the Petitioners, the villagers, acting through the Gram Sabha, are deemed to be the trustees of the deity and its property.

3. Thereafter, Respondent Nos. 1(a) to 1(d), through their power of attorney holder, approached Respondent No. 5, the Minister, by filing an application. They requested that the suit land should be converted from Devsthan Inam Class III to Old Tenure Class I. They also sought a declaration that they were the owners of the suit land under Section 32-G read with Section 70-B of the BTAL Act. Further, they requested that permission under Section 43 of the BTAL Act should be granted to transfer the land. By the impugned Judgment and Order, the Minister allowed the application bearing No. Dev/014/PK/347/1-4. The date of the impugned order is stated to be 22 August 2014. Thereafter, on 14 October 2016, this Court passed an order directing the Tahsildar to implement clause (2) of the impugned order within three months from 21 November 2016, subject to the Tahsildar first satisfying himself whether the order dated 22 August 2014 passed by the Minister was still in force. This Court, however, made it clear that it had not examined the legality or validity of the Minister's order. The question regarding the validity of the said order was specifically kept open. The Petitioners have, therefore, filed the present Petition challenging the legality of the Minister's order.

4. Mr. Chaitanya B. Nikte, learned Advocate appearing for the Petitioners, submitted that the Minister had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order. According to him, there is no provision of law which gives the Minister power to convert Devsthan Inam Class III land into Class I land. He further submitted that the Minister could not have directed the Tahsildar to declare Respondent Nos. 1(a) to 1(d) as owners under Sections 32-G and 70-B of the BTAL Act. The power to decide such matters is given to the statutory authority under the Act. The Minister also could not have directly granted permission for sale of the suit land or directed deletion of the existing revenue entry in the name of Bhairavdev. According to the learned Advocate, these directions are beyond the powers of the Minister and are, therefore, without ju