Anil Bhimrao Kamble v. Secretary, Chief Minister, Mumbai and Others

Bombay HC9 Jan 2026WP/7657/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maharashtra / Nagpur Bench; memorial land allotment by Gram Panchayat; guidelines for memorials of freedom fighters/great personalities (GR dated 11.08.2016, clause 3 / clause 3(1)); Government Resolution dated 28.06.2021 constituting memorial committee; Martyr Ramrao Sodgir memorial; Buddha Vihar land demand; FIR dated 23.10.2024; law and order / communal differences; retrospective applicability of Government Resolution; writ petition dismissed; pending applications disposed; no costs; neutral citation 2026:BHC-NAG:5918-DB.

What did the court decide?

On reading the FIR, the dispute was not about the allotment of land for the memorial of Martyr Ramrao Sodgir; it arose out of a demand by certain people to be allowed to use that land for a Buddha Vihar, which was rejected. ¶Para 4

Anil Bhimrao Kamble vs Secretary, Chief Minister, Mumbai and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶Para 8

Issue for consideration

Whether the Government Resolution dated 28.06.2021 and the Gram Panchayat resolution dated 26.11.2025 (concerning land for the memorial of Martyr Ramrao Sodgir) are contrary to the Government Resolution dated 11.08.2016 laying down guidelines for establishment of memorials. +1 more

¶Para 2

Court's answer

The Government Resolution dated 11.08.2016 is subsequent to the Gram Panchayat's allotment of land made on 26.11.2015, and the petitioner failed to show that the GR applies retrospectively.

¶Para 6

Ratio / Principle

¶Para 4

Key takeaways

The law and order situation was not caused by the Gram Panchayat's allotment of land for the memorial but by the demand for the land for a Buddha Vihar.ratio¶Para 5
There was therefore no non-compliance of clause 3(1) of the Government Resolution dated 11.08.2016.ratio¶Para 5
From 2015 to 2024, for about nine years, no law and order situation arose in the village because of the allotment of the land.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Anil S. Kilor & Raj D. Wakode, JJ.), decision dated 15.04.2026 — Writ Petition No. 7657 of 2025 dismissed. Petitioner challenged the Government Resolution dated 28.06.2021 and the Gram Panchayat resolution dated 26.11.2025 (allotment of land for memorial of Martyr Ramrao Sodgir) as contravening the guidelines in the Government Resolution dated 11.08.2016, specifically clause (3) requiring that such grants cause no inconvenience to citizens and no communal differences/violence. The Court found from the FIR of 23.10.2024 that the dispute and law-and-order problem arose from a rejected demand to use the land for a Buddha Vihar, not from the memorial allotment, so clause 3(1) was not breached. The GR dated 11.08.2016 postdates the 26.11.2015 allotment and no retrospective applicability was demonstrated. Nine years (2015–2024) passed without any law-and-order incident; the GR dated 28.06.2021 merely constituted the memorial committee. Pending applications disposed of; no costs.

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:5918-DB

¶2

3.wp.7657.2025.odt

¶3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 7657 OF 2025 Anil Bhimrao Kamble

¶6

.Vs.

¶7

Secretary, Chief Minister, Mumbai and others

¶8

_______________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders.

¶9

Dr Mohan Gawai, Advocate for the petitioner/s Mr A. V. Palshikar, AGP for the State Mr Aniket Chavhan, Advocate for respondent No. 19 Mr M. A. Vishnu, Advocate for respondent Nos. 14 to 16

¶10

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. DATED : 15th APRIL, 2026 .

¶11

Heard.

¶12

In this writ petition, a challenge is raised to the Government Resolution dated 28.06.2021 and the Gram Panchayat resolution dated 26.11.2025, on the ground that they are contrary to the Government Resolution dated 11.08.2016, which has laid down the guidelines in respect of establishment of memorials of freedom fighter/great personalities.

¶13

According to the petitioner, clause (3) of the Government Resolution dated 11.08.2016 has not been complied with, which stipulates that while granting land for such memorial, a precaution shall be taken that it should not cause any inconvenience to the citizens and it should not

¶14

3.wp.7657.2025.odt

¶15

¶16

create any communal differences/violence. It further states that the Government rules shall be followed while making construction of such memorial and it should not be constructed on the private land.

¶17

The petitioner is relying upon the FIR which was filed on 23.10.2024. Having gone through the FIR, it is evident that the dispute was not in relation to allotment of land, as per the impugned resolution passed by the Gram Panchayat dated 26.11.2025 for the memorial of Martyr Ramrao Sodgir, but it arose out of demand of certain people to allow to use that land for Buddha Vihar, which was rejected.

¶18

From the FIR, it is evident that the law and order situation is not created because of allotment of the said land by the Gram Panchayat for the memorial of Martyr Ramrao Sodgir, but because of demand of the land, for Buddha Vihar, which was already allotted for memorial. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any non compliance of clause 3(1).

¶19

Furthermore, the Government Resolution dated 11.08.2016 is subsequent to the allotment of the land made by the Gram Panchayat on 26.11.2015. The petitioner has failed to point out that the said GR is applicable retrospectively.

¶20

Further, from 2015 to 2024, for about nine years, no law and order situation arose in the village because of such allotment of land and as far as the impugned resolution dated

¶21

3 3.wp.7657.2025.odt

¶22

28.06.2021 is concerned, it is only in relation to the constitution of committee for memorial to be constructed in the name of Martyr Ramrao Namdeorao Sodgir

¶23

In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the present petition, accordingly, it is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶24

[RAJ D. WAKODE, J] [ANIL S. KILOR, J.]

¶25

Namrata

¶26

Signed by: Miss Namrata Suryawanshi Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 17/04/2026 14:49:04

Anil Bhimrao Kamble v. Secretary, Chief Minister, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Bhimrao Kamble v. Secretary, Chief Minister, Mumbai and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Union of India, Thr. General Manager, Central Railway, Cst, Mumbai and Others vs Shri R. H. Gharsile S/O Harishchandra Singh

United Bank Employees Union, Thr. General Secy., Kamal Rangwani and Anr. vs the Assistant General Manager and Disciplinary Authority, Mumbai and Ors.

Late Khushal Kapse Bahu. Shikshan Sanstha, Gondiya, Thr. Secretary, Rajesh K. Kapse and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Prin. Secretary, School Education and Sports Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Swacch Association, Thr. Secy., Shri. Sharad Biharilal Paliwal, Nagpur vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secy., Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Swacch Association, Thr. Secy., Shri. Sharad Biharilal Paliwal, Nagpur vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secy., Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Others

Sanjay Ss/O Surajmal Atal and Another vs the Joint Charity Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and Ors.