Disposed¶30

Baliram Pandit Kadam v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC17 Oct 2025PIL/28/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench; PIL No. 28/2022 disposed of for non-prosecution by petitioner; encroachment on public/Government/Gairan land; order dated 8/8/2025 in PIL No. 127 of 2022; jurisdictional Collector to issue notice, survey, hear parties, remove encroachment in accordance with law within six months; police assistance undertaking; question of fact not adjudicable in summary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; rights accrued to alleged encroachers by lapse of time; pending proceedings initiated by alleged encroachers; State of Maharashtra.

What did the court decide?

Public Interest Litigation No. 28 of 2022 is disposed of. ¶30

Baliram Pandit Kadam Vs the State of Maharashtra and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether Public Interest Litigation No. 28 of 2022 should be disposed of, the petitioner having not prosecuted the case since its institution. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

Public Interest Litigation No. 28 of 2022 is disposed of.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

In any proceedings initiated by the Jurisdictional Collector, the rights accrued to persons who are the alleged encroachers on account of lapse of time must be considered by him.

¶29

Key takeaways

The Jurisdictional Collector shall take note of any pending proceeding initiated by the alleged encroachers.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Public Interest Litigation No. 28 of 2022 (Baliram s/o Pandit Kadam v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.), High Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad (Shree Chandrashekhar, CJ. and Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.), decided 17th October 2025: the petition was disposed of, the Court recording that the petitioner had not prosecuted the case since its institution. The learned Government Pleader referred to this Court's order dated 8/8/2025 in Public Interest Litigation No.127 of 2022, wherein directions were issued for removal of encroachment on public/Government land: the jurisdictional Collectors were directed to issue notices, carry out a survey, afford an opportunity of hearing, and, if the lands are found to be Government/Gairan lands, initiate action for removal of encroachment in accordance with law within six months, with police assistance; it was clarified that encroachment is a question of fact which cannot be adjudicated in summary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and that no opinion was expressed on the merits. While disposing of the present petition, the Court further observed that in any proceedings initiated by the Jurisdictional Collector, the rights accrued to alleged encroachers on account of lapse of time must be considered, and the Collector shall take note of any pending proceeding initiated by the alleged encroachers.

¶1

2025:BHC-AUG:30021-DB

¶2

P.I.L. No. 28/2022

¶3

:: 1 ::

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.28 OF 2022

¶6

Baliram s/o Pandit Kadam … Petitioner VERSUS

¶7

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents

¶8

Mr. G.N. Patil, Advocate for petitioner Mr. A.B. Girase, Government Pleader for State

¶9

CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ. & RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

¶10

DATE : 17th OCTOBER, 2025

¶11

P.C. :

¶12

The proceedings in this Public Interest Litigation disclose that the petitioner did not prosecute this case ever since it was instituted. The learned Government Pleader refers to an order passed by this Court in Public Interest Litigation No.127 of 2022, wherein directions were issued for removal of encroachment on public/ Government land. In the order dated 8/8/2025, this Court issued following directions in Public Interest Litigation No.127 of 2022 :

¶13

“5. We have considered the rival submissions made by the parties. No individual has a right to encroach upon the Government land or Gairan land. However, whether or not any individual has encroached upon

¶14

P.I.L. No. 28/2022

¶15

:: 2 ::

¶16

the public land is a question of fact, which cannot be adjudicated in these summary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to issue the following directions in all the petitions:

¶17

(i) The jurisdictional Collectors shall issue notice to the petitioners as well as to the unofficial respondents and the interveners and every other person who may be in occupation of the Government land/Gairan land;

¶18

(ii) The jurisdictional Collectors shall carry out a survey to ascertain the encroachment on the subject lands;

¶19

(iii) The jurisdictional Collectors, thereupon, afford an opportunity of hearing to all parties and to submit documents in support of their claim/s;

¶20

(iv) In case the subject lands are found to be Government/Gairan lands, the jurisdictional Collectors shall initiate action for removal of encroachment in accordance with law;

¶21

(v) The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out by the jurisdictional Collectors within a period of six months from today;

¶22

(vi) Learned Government Pleader undertakes that necessary assistance of police shall be provided to the officers for removal of encroachment from the Government/Gairan lands;

¶23

(vii) Needless to state that any person aggrieved by the order directing removal of the encroachment shall be at liberty to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to them in law.

¶24

It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.”

¶25

We may further add that, in any proceedings initiated

¶26

by the Jurisdictional Collector, the rights accrued to the

¶27

P.I.L. No. 28/2022

¶28

:: 3 ::

¶29

persons who are the alleged encroachers on account of lapse of time must be considered by him. The Jurisdictional Collector shall also take note of any pending proceeding initiated by the alleged encroachers.

¶30

Public Interest litigation No.28 of 2022 is disposed of.

¶31

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

¶32

(CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶33

FMPathan/-

Baliram Pandit Kadam v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baliram Pandit Kadam v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakruti Foundation, Thr. Its President, Deepak Bharatsingh Dixit vs Union of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi and Others

Adv. Mrinall Chakravorty vs Law and Justice Department, Government of Maharashtra, Thr. Its Secretary and Ors.

Faiyyaz a. Gafoor Sagari vs the Municipal Corporation for City of Solapur and Anr.

Rajendranath Parasnath Pandey and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Chief Secretary and Ors.

Shriniwas Rajaram Bachha Vs the Union of India through the Secretary and Others

Mohan Shivsing Gautam Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Chief Secretary and Others

Amit Rishikesh Mishra vs the Municipal Commissioner Navi Mumbai and Ors.

Bhagwan Parshuram Bhoge and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra Thru. Secretary and Ors.

Pawan Shivprasad Tiwari Vs Imran Rafiyoddin Maniyar

Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust vs Niket Mehta

Lilavati Kirtilal Mehta Medical Trust vs Niket Mehta

The Senior Superintendent Head Office Aurangabad and Others Vs Anil Uttamrao Ghayal

Shri Pravin Punjaram Nere Vs The State of Maharashtra Thr its principal Secretary School Education Department Mantralaya Mumbai

Ramkishan Laxman Bargal Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Others