PUNE: The Bombay High Court ruled that the state has the authority to repurpose gairan lands—government-owned communal land designated for free grazing of village livestock—for public projects by the central or state governments. This decision was made under Section 40 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (MLRC), which takes precedence over other provisions.
A bench of Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V Shirsat dismissed a writ petition from the gram panchayat of Nere village in Mulshi taluka and two villagers, challenging the district collector’s orders from June 13, 2025. These orders involved allocating two gairan land parcels of 4 hectares and 24 ares, and 3 hectares 4 ares to the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA). MHADA is currently working on a housing project as part of the Prime Minister Awas Yojana (PMAY) – 2.0 scheme for economically weaker sections.
The court found that the panchayat’s claim that its consent was necessary for these land allotments lacked statutory support. Furthermore, their reference to a government resolution (GR) dated July 12, 2011—issued in connection with a Supreme Court decision from the same year—was deemed irrelevant, as the current case differed significantly from the one addressed by the Supreme Court.
Addressing the panchayat’s argument that its name was listed under “other rights” in the revenue records for the lands in question, the bench stated, “It is undisputed that the respondent state owns the land. Therefore, simply because the petitioner gram panchayat’s name is in the ‘other rights’ column does not strengthen its case.”
The petitioners, represented by advocate Abhijit Kulkarni, also cited Section 22A of the MLRC, which restricts the diversion of gairan lands unless specific conditions are met. They pointed out that during a meeting on February 15, 2022, the then state revenue minister had recommended the allotment of this land to the gram panchayat for social projects such as a rural hospital, cultural centers for women, and schools, arguing that the collector could not suddenly reverse this decision in favor of MHADA.
The bench noted that the regional plan indicated the designated land parcels as reserved for “public housing”. The state government’s decision to allocate them to MHADA for the PMAY-2.0 scheme aligned with their intended use. “The gram panchayat cannot assert any established right based solely on the minutes from the February 15, 2022 meeting held in the then-revenue minister’s chamber,” the bench concluded.
The bench subsequently lifted its interim order from March 4, 2026, which had maintained the status quo, following the state’s declaration that it had acquired the land for the housing initiative. On July 10, the bench denied the petitioners’ request to extend this interim order for a specific duration.
