Mr. Shivdarshan Guruprasad Shukla (Deceased)Rajanlal Shivdarshan Shukla And Ors vs Mr. Radhesham Sarjuprasad Pardeshi (Deceased Through Smt. Kamladevi Radhesham Pardeshi And Ors

2026:BHC-AS:20623-DB
LPA 318-13 & 110-13 REVISED.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
LAXMI
SUBHASH
SONTAKKE

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Digitally signed by
LAXMI SUBHASH
SONTAKKE
Date: 2026.04.30
15:08:04 +0530
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 110 OF 2013
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 11106 OF 2011
Mr. Shivdarshan Guruprasad Shukla
Since deceased through his Legal Representatives
1A Mr. Rajanlal Shivdarshan Shukla
Since deceased through his Legal Representatives
Age Adult, Indian Inhabitant residing
At Awadh House, Gram Panchayat Road,
Khaira Phatak Post Boisar, Taluka Palghar, District Thane
1B Mr. Harinarayan Shivdharashan Shukla
1C Mr. Mahendrakumar Shivdarshan Shukla
1D Mr. Rajendra Shivdarshan Shukla
All Adults, Indian Inhabitants and residing
At near Zuber Khan building Khaira Phatak
Post Boisar, Taluka Palghar, District Thane ...Appellants
(Org. Respondent Nos. 3a to 3d)
Versus
1 Mr. Radhesham Sarjuprasad Pardeshi
Since deceased through his L.Rs
1A Smt. Kamladevi Radhesham Pardeshi
1B Mr. Ramjanam Radheshyam Pardeshi
2 Mr. Madanmohan Sarjuprasad Pardeshi
3 Mr.Jamunaprasad Sarjuprasad Pardeshi
4 Mr.Shamlal Sarjuprasad Pardeshi
All adults, Indian Inhabitants residing
At Sorvali, Taluka Palghar, Dist. Thane
5 State of Maharashtra
(Notice to be served on the office of the
Govt. Pleader, High Court, Appellate
Page 1 of 12
Laxmi
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 18:03:17 :::

LPA 318-13 & 110-13 REVISED.DOC
Side, Writ Cell, High Court, Bombay

6 Hon'ble Minister for Revenue,
Maharashtra State, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 032 ..Respondents
(Nos. 1 to 4 Org. Petitioners, Nos. 5 & 6
Org. Respondent Nos.1 And 2)
WITH
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 318 OF 2013
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 11106 OF 2011
1 Mr. Radhesham Sarjuprasad Pardeshi
Since deceased through his L.Rs
1a Smt. Kamladevi Radhesham Pardeshi
1b Mr. Ramjanam Radheshyam Pardeshi
2 Mr. Madanmohan Sarjuprasad Pardeshi
3 Mr.Jamunaprasad Sarjuprasad Pardeshi
All adults, Indian Inhabitants residing
At Sorvali, Taluka Palghar, Dist. Thane ...Appellants
Vs.
1. State of Maharashtra
(Notice to be served on the office of the
Govt. Pleader, High Court, Appellate
Side, Writ Cell, High Court, Bombay
2. Hon'ble Minister for Revenue,
Maharashtra State, Mantralaya,
Mumbai 400 032
3. Mr. Shivdarshan Guruprasad Shukla
Since deceased through his Legal Representatives
3a Mr. Rajanlal Shivdarshan Shukla
Since deceased through his Legal Representatives
Age Adult, Indian Inhabitant residing
At Awadh House, Gram Panchayat Road,
Khaira Phatak Post Boisar, Taluka Palghar, District Thane
3b Mr. Harinarayan Shivdharashan Shukla
Page 2 of 12
Laxmi
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 18:03:17 :::

LPA 318-13 & 110-13 REVISED.DOC
3c Mr. Mahendrakumar Shivdarshan Shukla

3d Mr. Rajendra Shivdarshan Shukla
All Adults, Indian Inhabitants and residing
At near Zuber Khan building Khaira Phatak
Post Boisar, Taluka Palghar, District Thane ...Respondents
_______
Mr. Y. S. Jahagirdar, Senior Advocate i/b. Shriniwas Patwardhan for the Appellant
in Letters Patent Appeal No.110/2013.
Mr. S. M. Railkar for the Appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No.318/2013.
Ms. Savita Prabhune, AGP for Respondent-State.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE , JJ.
DATE: 20 APRIL 2026
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: AARTI SATHE, J.): -
1. These two Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the Judgment and
th
Order dated 28 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
Page 3 of 12
Laxmi
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 18:03:17 :::

LPA 318-13 & 110-13 REVISED.DOC
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: -
th
i. The subject land was allotted on 19 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.
th
ii. On 26 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.
st
iii. On 21 October 1974, the Original Petitioners, by executing a deed put the
th
Original Respondents in possession of the subject land. Thereafter, on 15 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
Page 4 of 12
Laxmi
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 18:03:17 :::

LPA 318-13 & 110-13 REVISED.DOC
th
subject land from agricultural use to non-agricultural use. Thereafter, on 12 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.
th
iv. On 30 March 1987, the appeals filed by the Original Petitioners and the
Original Respondents before the Additional Collector, Thane against the order
th
dated 12 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
th
dismissed on 7 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
Petition No. 907 of 1995 respectively before this Court.
th
v. On 11 June 2009, the Original Respondents withdrew Writ Petition No.
907 of 1995, with liberty to apply for regularization of their possession in respect
of the subject land. The aforesaid Writ Petition was disposed of granting the said
liberty. However, Writ Petition No. 1944 of 1996 filed by the Original Petitioners
had remained pending.
Page 5 of 12
Laxmi
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 18:03:17 :::

LPA 318-13 & 110-13 REVISED.DOC
th
vi. Thereafter, the Original Petitioners on 19 July 2010 filed a review petition

being Review Petition (St.) No. 17978 of 2010, seeking review of the order dated
th
11 June 2009 passed in Writ Petition No 907 of 1995. However, the same was
st
dismissed on account of non-removal of office objections. Thereafter, on 31
October 2011, the Minister of Revenue and Forest, Government of Maharashtra by
an order of even date held that the occupation by the Original Respondents could
not be that of a trespasser, and accordingly allowed the Original Respondents’
application for regularization, subject to fulfillment of certain conditions as
mentioned therein.
st
vii. Being aggrieved by the order dated 31 October 2011 passed by the
Minister of Revenue and Forest in respect of the subject land regularizing the
occupation by the Original Respondents, the Original Petitioners filed Writ
Petition No. 11106 of 2011 before this Court, which came to be dismissed by the
th
impugned order dated 28 September 2012, which is the subject matter of
challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeals.
viii. The facts in Letters Patent Appeal No. 318 of 2013 are similar to the facts in
Letters Patent Appeal No. 110 of 2013 above with the only difference being that in
Letters Patent Appeal No. 318 of 2013, the Appellant therein, i.e., the Original
Petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order to the extent that it failed to consider
that the Original Respondents, had withdrawn Writ Petition No. 907 of 1995
without disclosing the facts of pendency of Writ Petition No. 1944 of 1996 filed by
the Original Petitioners and had obtained the order of withdrawal and liberty to
Page 6 of 12
Laxmi
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 18:03:17 :::

LPA 318-13 & 110-13 REVISED.DOC
make application for regularization of their occupation of the subject land behind

the back of the Original Petitioners. The grievance of the Original Petitioners is
with respect to the fact that when the Original Respondents were permitted to
withdraw Writ Petition No. 907 of 1995, they were not heard by the Minister
before he allowed the regularization application, without considering that the
Original Petitioner never intended to sell the subject land to the Original
Respondents.
3. It is in the backdrop of the aforesaid facts that the present Letters Patent
Appeals have been filed by the Original Petitioners as well as the Original
th
Respondents, primarily assailing the impugned order dated 28 September 2012
passed by the learned Single Judge.
4. Mr. S. M. Railkar learned Advocate appeared for the Original Petitioners,
Mr. Y. S. Jahagirdar, Senior Advocate instructed by Mr. Shriniwas Patwardhan
appeared for the Original Respondents, and Ms. Savita Prabhune, AGP appeared
for Respondent-State.
5. At the very outset, Mr. Jahagirdar, learned Senior for the Original
Respondents submitted that though the impugned order has clarified that the State
must take all steps to ensure that the subject land is dealt with in terms of the
Supreme Court directives and the Judgments rendered till date, and an option has
been given to re-auction, re-sell or re-allot the subject land irrespective of any order
of occupancy in favour of the Original Respondents, yet, the impugned order has
not regularized the occupation/possession of the Original Respondents and
Page 7 of 12
Laxmi
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 18:03:17 :::

LPA 318-13 & 110-13 REVISED.DOC
directed that the Original Respondents have to participate and apply for allotment

of the subject land in their favour afresh and bid for the same in auction
proceedings. It is his submission that in view of the aforesaid directions, the
Original Respondents be given the first right to participate in the said auction,
which the State intends to carry out, and which has not been done so far. He
therefore submitted that the impugned order to that extent be set aside and the
Original Respondents be allowed to participate in the allotment of the subject land.
6. Mr. Railkar learned counsel appearing for the Original Petitioners has
assailed the impugned order on the ground that the same has not been passed on a
th
proper appreciation of the facts. He further submitted that the order dated 11
June 2009 passed by this Court was passed without considering that the Original
Petitioners themselves had filed Writ Petition No. 1944 of 1996 challenging the
th
order of resumption and forfeiture dated 12 June 1984.
7. Per Contra , Ms. Prabhune, learned AGP for the State vehemently
opposed the reliefs as prayed for in both the Letters Patent Appeals on the ground
that the subject land belongs to the State Government, and the said position has
been made clear in the impugned order, and therefore, neither the Original
Petitioners nor the Original Respondents can assert any right in respect of the
subject land. It is her submission that it is now for the State Government to decide
upon the fate of the subject land, and none of the aforesaid parties can claim any
right thereon.
Page 8 of 12
Laxmi
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 18:03:17 :::

LPA 318-13 & 110-13 REVISED.DOC
8. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the papers

and proceedings with the assistance of the learned Counsel for the parties. We
therefore proceed to decide both the Letters Patent Appeals.
9. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we do not accept an
unusual direction/observation in the impugned order passed by the learned Single
Judge when the same on one hand starts with the following observations i.e. “This
Writ Petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India demonstrates
as to how public properties and Government lands are being dealt with contrary to
the Rule of Law ” and yet, in the penultimate paragraph goes on to hold that the
State must take all steps to ensure that the land can be re-auctioned, resold and re-
allotted and also allows Original Respondents to continue in possession of the
subject land and also to participate/bid in the process to acquire the subject land
from the State Government. The relevant paragraph of the impugned order is
reproduced below:-
“21. In these circumstances looked at the matter in either which way,
this Writ Petition cannot succeed. While dismissing it, it is clarified
that the State must take all steps so as to ensure that the land is dealt
with in terms of the Honourable Supreme Court's directives and
judgments rendered till date. If that means that the land has to be re-
auctioned and resold or reallotted, then, the State must take all steps
in accordance with law irrespective of any order of occupancy in favour
of the Respondent No.3. If the Respondent No.3 wants to continue in
possession or hold the land, what he can do is to only participate in
the exercise in terms of such directives. At that point, if the Respondent
No.3 is able to offer a competitive price or bid or able to match the
same in terms of the rules applicable, then, the Government may
decide, depending upon all factors and circumstances, to allot the land
to him. However, the act of regularization of the occupation and
possession cannot be accepted and tolerated once it is found to be
contrary to the rule of law. Since it is the Writ Petition by the
Petitioners and both, the Petitioners and the Respondent No.3, have
been heard in detail and in the peculiar facts and circumstances in
order to enable the Respondent No.3 to apply for allotment of the land
to him and to participate as above, physical dispossession of the
Respondent No.3 shall not be disturbed for a period of three (3) months
from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, the exercise in
terms of the aforesaid be completed as, expeditiously as possible and
Page 9 of 12
Laxmi
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 18:03:17 :::

LPA 318-13 & 110-13 REVISED.DOC
within a period of three months. Thereafter, physical possession of the
land shall be taken from the Respondent No.3. Needless to state that
even the Petitioners are not prevented from participating in this
exercise as that will not be contrary to the rule of law.”

10. The aforesaid finding, to our mind, cannot be sustained inasmuch as
once it has been held that none of the parties i.e. the Original Petitioners and the
Original Respondents had unlawfully occupied the subject land, and also the
regularization in favour of the Original Respondents was held to be bad, and
despite that allowed the State Government to once again auction the subject land
and allowed the Original Respondents to participate in the auction, is infact
deciding as to what the State Government ought to be doing qua the land in
question. The Court could not have recognized any participation of the Original
Respondents in any compulsory auction, this gives an impression implicit of some
rights being noticed (when there are none) of the Original Respondents when their
participation is recognized in any proposed auction. We are of the clear opinion
that once the illegality is established and the land is fully within the control of the
State Government, then it is for the State Government to deal with the land for any
purpose including for any public Purpose. There cannot be a mandate from the
Court for a compulsory disposal of the land in such method. This would amount to
the Court stepping into the shoes of the Executive. We are therefore, inclined to
accept the submission made by Ms. Prabhune on behalf of State that as the subject
land now belongs to the State, it is hence the State’s prerogative to deal with the
same and use the subject land for public purpose as the State requires.
11. Although the impugned order has rightly held that the Minister had no
authority to deal with the Government lands and public properties in the manner
Page 10 of 12
Laxmi
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 18:03:17 :::

LPA 318-13 & 110-13 REVISED.DOC
as reported and rightly criticized by the learned Single Judge the same being

contrary to the rule of law, so as to hand over lands to few chosen people. As a
consequence the land was declared to be rightly vested in the State Government in
not recognizing any right of these parties much less to retain the land. Thus, once
the land stood vested and belongs to the State, then there is nothing in law which
would permit the State not to deal with the land as per law. Departing from this the
learned Single Judge in our opinion ought not to have held that the State can
reauction the subject land and allow the Original Respondents to participate/bid in
the acquisition of the subject land. This contradiction in the impugned order, to
our mind, does not bode well in deciding the disputes where the subject matter of
challenge is in respect of State lands which have been illegally occupied. We
therefore reject the submission made by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Jahagirdar
that the Original Respondents be given the first right to participate in the auction
proceedings insofar as the acquisition of the subject land is concerned. We are also
inclined to reject the submission made by Mr. Railkar on behalf of the Original
Petitioners that the impugned order has been passed erroneously, inasmuch as Writ
Petition No. 1944 of 1996, which had been filed by the Original Petitioners
th
challenging the resumption order dated 12 June 1984 and revisional order dated
th
7 September 1987, was dismissed for want of prosecution and thereafter never
pursued and therefore the challenge to the forfeiture and resumption to the subject
land has attained finality insofar as the Original Petitioners are concerned.
12. We are therefore of the view that though the impugned order has
rightly held that the subject land belongs to the State, however, the same needs to
Page 11 of 12
Laxmi
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 18:03:17 :::

LPA 318-13 & 110-13 REVISED.DOC
be set aside to the extent that it directs the State to re-auction, resell and re-allot the

subject land and allows the participation of the Original Respondent for the
acquisition of the subject land. We are therefore of the view that the impugned
order, to the extent it allows the aforesaid reliefs to the Original Petitioners and the
Original Respondents is required to be set aside. In view of the aforesaid, the State
Government is directed to resume the subject land within a period of two months
from the date this order is made available on the website of this Court.
13. The State Government, post resumption of the subject land is free to
use the subject land for any public purposes, as they deem fit, in accordance with
law.
14. Both the Letters Patent Appeals are dismissed in view of the aforesaid
terms. No costs.
( AARTI SATHE , J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Page 12 of 12
Laxmi
::: Uploaded on - 30/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 30/04/2026 18:03:17 :::