High Court
Legal Reasoning
1 WP / 1957 / 2025+IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABADWRIT PETITION NO. 1957 OF 20251.Rajebhau s/o Mukinda NampalleAge 60 yrs Occ. Labour & Agri.2.Narsing s/o Limbaji KambleAge 50 yrs Occ. Agri & Labour3.Manik s/o Vithoba AagaleAge 55 yrs Occ. Agri & Labour4.Shankar s/o Vithoba AagaleAge 50 yrs Occ. Agri & Labour5.Ranba s/o Bhaguji GavaneAge 45 yrs Occ. Agri. & Labour6.Kondabai Baburao GavaneAge 60 yrs Occ. Agri & H.H.7.Sonappa Bapurao KokaneAge 45 yrs. Occ. Agri & Labour8.Ramesh s/o Kisanrao TaralkarAge. 50 yrs Occ. Agri & Labour9.Asha w/o Khandu KokaneAge 50 yrs Occ. Agri & Labour10.Abhimanyu s/o Mokinda NampalleAge 65 yrs Occ. Agri & Labour11.Balasaheb s/o Sheshrao HareAge 45 yrs Occ. Agri & Labour12.Govind s/o Tukaram Mohite Age. 45 yrs Occ. Agri & Labour13.Digamber s/o Shivram LonkarAge. 45 yrs Occ. Agri & LabourAll R/o Jawalgaon Ta. AmbajogaiDistrict. Beed..PETITIONERSVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough its Secretary,Revenue and Forest Department,Mantralaya Mumbai – 322.The District Collector, BeedDistrict Beed.3.Deputy/Sub-Divisional Officer,Ambajogai District. Beed. 2 WP / 1957 / 2025+4.The Tahsildar, AmbajogaiTa. Ambajogai District. Beed..RESPONDENTS…WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 1018 OF 20251.Suryakant @ Mahesh Marotirao PatilAge 56 years, Occ: Agriculturistr/o At present Near Balaji TempleAllapur, Tq. DegloorDistrict Nanded...PETITIONERVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough its Secretary,Industry, Energy & LaborDepartment, Mantralaya,Mumbai.2.The Collector,Collector Office, Nanded.3.The Deputy Collector,Degloor,District Nanded4.The Tahsildar, Degloor...RESPONDENTS…WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 1906 OF 20251.Kiran s/o Ramesh Patil,Age : 42 years, Occ : Agri. and Deputy Sarpanch,R/o. Shidwadi, Post. Dhamangaon,Taluka Chalisgaon, Dist. Jalgaon...PETITIONERVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough its Secretary,Revenue and Forest Division,Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.2.The Divisional Commissioner,Divisional Commissionerate Office,Nashik.3.The District Collector,Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon. 3 WP / 1957 / 2025+4.The Chief Executive Officer,Zilla Parishad, Jalgoan.5.Executive Engineer (Establishment)(O and M Circule),Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd.,Jalgaon, Dist. Jalgaon..RESPONDENTS…WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 2181 OF 20251.Namdev S/o Balaji Jadhav,Age : 42 years, Occu : Agri,R/o. Kapshi, Tq. Palan,Dist. Parbhani...PETITIONERVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough its Chief Secretary,Revenue and Forest Department,,Madam Kama Road, Mumbai – 32.2.The State of Maharashtra,Through its Secretary,The Ministry of New and Renewal Energy,Madam Kama Road, Mumbai – 32.3.The Maharashtra,Energy Development Agency,Through its Chairman,Aundh Road, Opposite to Spicer College,Near Commissionerate of Animal Husbandry,Aundh, Pune, Maharashtra 411007(Maharashtra)4.The Maharashtra,Energy Development Agency,Through its Director,Aundh Road, Opposite to Spicer College,Near Commissionerate of Animal Husbandry,Aundh, Pune, Maharashtra 411007(Maharashtra)5.The Union of India,Through its Secretary,Ministry of Power,F-Wing, Second Floor,Nirman Bhawan,New Delhi-110011 4 WP / 1957 / 2025+6.The Maharashtra State,Electricity distribution CompanyThrough its Chairman and Managing Director,Office At Prakashgad Plot No. G-9anantKanekar Marg Bandra (E),Mumbai, Maharashtra, India – 4000517.The Divisional Commissioner OfficerDivisional Commissioner Office.Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,Tq. & Dist. Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.8.The District Collector,Collector Office, Parbhani9.The Maharashtra State,Electricity distribution Company Ltd.Through its Superintendent Engineer office atViddut Bhawan Jintur Road Parbhani.10.The Deputy SuperintendentEngineer Maharashtra StateElectricity Distribution CompanySubstation at Palam.10.The sub divisional OfficerOffice at Gangakhed Dist. Parbhani.11.The Tahsildar,Tahsil Office, at Palam,Tq. Palam, Dist. Parbhani.12.The Divisional Forest OfficerDivisional Forest Office At Parbhani.Tq. & Dist. Parbhani.13.The Assistant Director,Town Planning office at parbhani.Tq. & Dist. Parbhani.14.The Chief Executive Officer,Zilla Parishad parbhani.Tq. & Dist. Parbhani...RESPONDENTS…WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 2930 OF 20251.Yashavanta s/o Sandu Gayakavad,Age :- 75 years, Occ. Agri.,R/o Galwada, Tq. Soygaon, Dist. Aurangabad..PETITIONERVERSUS
Legal Reasoning
5 WP / 1957 / 2025+1.The State of MaharashtraThrough its Secretary,Industry, Energy and Labour,Maharashtra State, Mantralaya,Mumbai - 322.The Divisional Commissioner,Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad3.The District Collector,Collector Office, Aurangabad4.The Sub Divisional Officer,Sub Division, Sillod,Tq. Sillod, Dist. Aurangabad5.The Tahsildar,Tahsil Office, Phulambri,Tq. Phulambri, Dist. Aurangabad..RESPONDENTS…WITHWRIT PETITION NO. 2741 OF 20251.Vijay s/o Limbaji KambleAge 50 yrs Occ. Agri & LabourR/o. Jawalgaon Ta. AmbajogaiDistrict. Beed..PETITIONERVERSUS1.The State of MaharashtraThrough its Secretary,Revenue and Forest Department,Mantralaya Mumbai-322.The Divisional Commissioner,Divisional Commissionerate Office,Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar3.The District Collector, BeedDistrict Beed.4.Deputy/Sub-Divisional Officer,Ambajogai District. Beed.5.The Tahsildar, AmbajogaiTa. Ambajogai District. Beed..RESPONDENTS...Advocate for petitioners : Mr. N.D. Kendre (WP/1957/2025 & WP/2741/2025)Advocate for petitioners : Mr. S.D. Tekwad (WP/1018/2025)Advocate for petitioners : Mr. Amol N. Kakade (WP/1906/2025)Advocate for petitioners : Mr. P.S. Anerao (WP/2181/2025)Advocate for petitioners : Mr. Raju W. Bagul (WP/2930/2025) 6 WP / 1957 / 2025+GP for the respondent – State : Mr. A.B. GiraseAdvocate for respondent no. 4 : Mr. Sachin B. Munde (WP/1906/2025)... CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL & Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ.RESERVED ON : 24 APRIL 2025PRONOUNCED ON : 09 MAY 2025JUDGMENT (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :We have heard the learned advocates for the petitioners inall these petitions as also the learned Government Pleader. 2.Rule in all the petitions. Learned Government Pleaderwaives service. Mr. Munde waives service for respondent no. 4 in writpetition no. 1906 of 2025.3.Considering the peculiar circumstances and at the jointrequest of the parties from all the petitions, all these matters are beingdisposed of finally at the stage of admission.4.With little variation in the pleadings and the prayer clauses,the basic issue on which adjudication is solicited in all these petitionsbeing the same, in order to avoid rigmarole, all the petitions are beingdisposed of by this common judgment.5.The issue involved, can be culled down to the effect, as towhether the state government, in the teeth of Jagpal Singh and 7 WP / 1957 / 2025+others Vs. State of Punjab and others; (2011) 11 SCC 396 and in theteeth of a policy decision taken by the state government in the light ofdirection is Jagpal Singh (supra), reflected in the governmentresolution dated 12.07.2011, can invoke the powers under section 22A,38 and 40 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, for using agairan land for setting up a solar power generation plant ?6.The learned advocates for the petitioners would take usthrough the decision in the matter of Jagpal Singh (supra) todemonstrate the intention and will of the supreme Court of maintainingpasture lands which have a special status in the agrarian societydominated by enormous population residing in the villages. Then, theywould refer to the policy declared by the state government inobedience to the directions in Jagpal Singh (supra), in the form ofgovernment resolution dated 12.07.2011.7.They would advert our attention to the governmentresolution, particularly clause 9.3, whereby it has been resolved that ifat all some portion from a gairan land is to be used by the central or thestate government or its various departments for providing public utilityor for some public purpose, it can be used with certain stipulations andconditions inter alia of non-availability of any other suitable governmentland and passing of a specific and precise resolution by the concernedGramsabha and Grampanchayat duly approved by the chief executive 8 WP / 1957 / 2025+officer of the zilla parishad and subject to ascertaining the requirementto be bona fide. They would submit that in view of such stringentstipulations, there is no escape for the state government and itsinstrumentalities in following the mandate. However, ignoring this,under the Chief Minister Solar Agricultural Channel Scheme ("मुख्यमंत्रीसौर कृषी वाहि(cid:18)नी योजना”), the state government as indicated in each ofthese petitions has started setting up the solar energy panels, withoutfulfilling the afore-mentioned conditions. Without fulfilling suchconditions, even the state cannot arbitrarily change the character of thegairan land making it permanently useless as a pasture which is thebasic need of the villagers and undermines the importance of the wholeconcept of maintaining a gairan or pasture in every village. They,therefore, are objecting to such action of the state of setting up thepanels and are seeking a prohibitio. 8.As we have cursorily mentioned herein-above, everypetition claims a different relief albeit afore-mentioned is the commonthread. Some of the petitioners who are occupying some portion of thegairan land, are seeking consideration of their representations forregularization and seeking injunction for protecting their possessionwhich aspects we propose to decide independently at a later place,after we reach a conclusion in respect of the afore-mentioned basicissue which is common across all the petitions. 9 WP / 1957 / 2025+9.The learned government pleader Mr. Girase would submitthat indeed gairans or pastures have a special status in the ruralcommunity and its importance has been emphasized by the SupremeCourt in Jagpal Singh. He also submits that in obedience to thedirections of the supreme court, the government resolution dated12.07.2011, was passed to meet the contingency.10.Mr. Girase, however, would take us through the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the state and would submit that though thegenesis of the issue lies in the matter of Jagpal Singh and thegovernment resolution dated 12.07.2011, the scenario has undergonea drastic change inasmuch as what was considered to be merely adirection of the supreme court under its inherent jurisdiction, thelegislature in its wisdom has inserted section 22A in the MaharashtraLand Revenue Code (MLRC) by Maharashtra Act No. XXXIV of 2017on 26.04.2017. He would submit that by incorporation of the specialprovision in the MLRC, elaborate provisions have been made for use ofa gairan land which begins with the title ‘Prohibition on diversion of useof Gairan land’. He would submit that in the light of such legislativeexercise, the state has responded to the direction of the supreme courtin Jagpal Singh in more concrete and positive manner. Thegovernment resolution dated 12.07.2011 was issued obviously inobedience to the directions of the supreme court but the legislature in 10 WP / 1957 / 2025+its wisdom has introduced section 22A which, in effect, repeals ormakes all the other earlier government resolutions including thegovernment resolution dated 12.07.2011 otiose. He would submit thatthe rights of the parties in all these petitions will now have to beexamined, regulated and decided only in the light of section 22A.11.In addition, Mr. Girase would submit that the decision ofthe state government to set up solar energy panels over the gairans orportions thereof also will have to be examined from the perspective ofits power to grant leases as mentioned in section 38 and the powers ofthe government to deal with its property, as provided under section 40of the MLRC. He would submit that a division bench at the PrincipalSeat, in the matter of Santosh Madhukar Bhondve Vs. State ofMaharashtra and others; 2024(6) Bom.C.R. 27 (writ petition no. 3098of 2021), decided on 12.09.2024, had an occasion to deal with a similarissue and has decided the rights in similar set of facts. He, would,therefore, submit that as a matter of judicial discipline, this divisionbench is bound by the conclusions of the co-ordinate division bench.12.Mr. Girase would lastly submit that in some of the petitions,the petitioners are merely seeking regularization of their encroachmentover gairan lands and in some, they are seeking consideration of theirrepresentations therefor, which request is beyond tolerance and cannotbe considered in the light of decision in the matter of Jagpal Singh 11 WP / 1957 / 2025+coupled with the statutory prohibition incorporated in the form ofsection 22A.13.Rival submissions now fall for our consideration.14.We feel it not necessary to consume space to emphasizethe importance of maintaining gairans, particularly in the light of JagpalSingh. One need not overemphasize the issue. As can be gathered,the basic issue which we have been called upon to consider anddecide revolves around the right of the state government in the light ofsections 22A, 38 and 40 of the MLRC to use a gairan land or a portionthereof for setting up solar energy panels.15.It is necessary to mention here itself that except the right ofthe state to use the gairan land, no other issue has been raised in anyof these petitions like whether the project sought to be erected or isbeing set up, is a public project or otherwise. Even no issue has beenraised in respect of its power to get it done through an agency engagedby it. Consequently, we are restricting the discussion only to the scopeof the right of the state government under the afore-mentionedprovisions.16.In our considered view, in a slightly different context, in thematter of Santosh Madhukar Bhondve (supra), a co-ordinate divisionbench has examined such power of the state in conjunction with the 12 WP / 1957 / 2025+provisions of the Maharashtra Provincial Municipal Corporations Actand that of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.The paragraphs relevant in the context of these petitions, in ourconsidered view, are sufficient to answer the issue involved in thesepetitions :“21. Before delving into the submissions made by the learnedCounsel for the respective parties, it would be apposite to noticecertain statutory provisions. Section 22A of the MLRC, 1966, which puts prohibition ondiversion or grant or lease of Gairan land with certain exceptionsthereto, is extracted hereunder:"22A. Prohibition on diversion of use of Gairan Land.-(1) The land set apart by the Collector for free pasturage of villagecattle (hereinafter referred to as "the Gairan Land") shall not bediverted, granted or leased for any other use, except in thecircumstances provided in sub-sections (2) or (3), as the case maybe.(2) The Gairan land may be diverted, granted or leased for a publicpurpose or public project of the Central Government or the StateGovernment or any statutory authority or any public authority orundertaking under the Central Government or the State Government(hereinafter in this section referred to as "Public Authority"), if noother suitable piece of Government land is available for such publicpurpose or public project.(3) The Gairan land may be diverted, granted or leased for a projectof a project proponent, not being a Public Authority, when suchGairan land is unavoidably required for such project and such projectproponent transfers to the State Government, compensatory land asprovided in sub-sections (4) and (5).(4) The compensatory land to be transferred to the StateGovernment under sub-section (3) shall be in the same revenuevillage have area equal to twice the area of the Gairan land and itsvalue shall not be less than the value of the Gairan land so allottedunder sub-section (3) : Provided that, the area of compensatory land shall have to besuitably increased, wherever necessary, so as to make its valueequal to the value of the Gairan land so allotted under sub-section(3).
Decision
13 WP / 1957 / 2025+(5) The compensatory land to be transferred to the StateGovernment under sub-section (3) shall, notwithstanding anythingcontained in any other law, rule or orders made thereunder, beassigned by the Collector under section 22 for the use only of freepasturage of village cattle or for grass or fodder reserve.(6) The powers of diversion, grant, lease of Gairan land under thissection shall be vested in the State Government: Provided that, notwithstanding anything contained in section 330A,the powers of the State Government under sub-section (3) shall notbe delegated to any officer or other authority sub-ordinate to it. Explanation .- (a) For the purposes of this section, the term "public purpose"shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in the Right toFair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (30 of 2013).(b) The question whether or not such land is unavoidablyrequired for a project under sub-section (3) shall be determinedby the State Government on the advice of the DivisionalCommissioner.(7) Notwithstanding anything in sub-sections (1) to (6) or any otherprovision of this Act, Gram Sabhas shall be competent to preserve,safeguard and manage Gairan land in Scheduled Areas: Providedthat, no Gairan land in the Scheduled Areas shall be diverted ordisposed of without the prior informed consent of the Gram Sabhasconcerned.Explanation.- For the purposes of sub-section (7), the term"Gram Sabha" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it insection 54-1A(b) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayats Act (III of1959)."Section 40 which vests authority in the State Government todispose of any Government land is also extracted hereinbelow: "40. Saving of powers of Government - Nothing containedin any provision of this Code shall derogate from the right ofthe State Government to dispose of any land, the property ofGovernment, on such terms and conditions as it deems fit."Section 3(3)(a) and 3(3)(b) of the Corporations Act, 1949which read thus:Section 3 - Specification of larger urban areas andconstitution of Corporations.(1) .........…(1A) .........…(2) ........… 14 WP / 1957 / 2025+(2A) .........…(3) (a) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), the StateGovernment may also from time to time after consultation withthe Corporation by notification in the Official Gazette, alter thelimits specified for any larger urban area under sub-section (1)or sub-section (2) so as to include therein, or to excludetherefrom, such area as is specified in the notification.(3) (b) Where any area is included within the limits of the 4larger urban area under clause (a), any appointments,notifications, notices, taxes, orders, schemes, licences,permissions, rules, by-laws or forms made, issued, imposedor granted under this Act or any other law, which are for thetime being in force in the 5[larger urban area] shall,notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for thetime being in force but save as otherwise provided in section129A or any other provision of this Act, apply to and be inforce in the additional area also from the date that area isincluded in the larger urban area."22. Main plank of argument of Shri Anturkar, learned SeniorAdvocate representing the petitioners is that in terms of theprovisions contained in Section 22A of the MLRC, 1966, Gairan landcannot be diverted or granted or leased for any other use and sincein this case Gairan land has been allotted in favour of respondentNo.4 - Corporation for use of construction of houses for economicallyweaker section, the same is illegal being violative of the prohibitioncontained in Section 22A of the MLRC, 1966. It is his furthersubmission that exception to prohibition as carved out in sub Section(2) of Section 22A of the MLRC, 1966 will operate only with a pre-condition that Gairan land may be diverted or granted or leased forpublic purpose/project only if no other suitable land of theGovernment is available for such public purpose/project and in theinstant case, there is nothing on record to establish that any otherGovernment land was available for the construction of houses foreconomically weaker section under the PMAY. Thus, it is hiscontention that the allotment was is unlawful.23. However, the said submission of Shri Anturkar on behalf of thepetitioners has to be scrutinized keeping in mind what Section 40 ofthe MLRC, 1966 provides for. The said submission also needs to betested on the legal proposition as argued by Shri Kumbhakoni,learned Senior Advocate representing respondent No.4 - Corporationthat in view of the provisions of Section 3(3)(a) and 3(3)(b) of theCorporations Act, 1949 on inclusion of subject land within themunicipal area of respondent No.4 – Corporation, the provisions ofthe MRTP Act, 1966 and the Development Plan sanctioned by theState Government under Section 34/35 of the MRTP Act, 1966 willoperate and therefore, any violation of the land use as determined by 15 WP / 1957 / 2025+the Development Plan prepared under Section 34/35 of the MRTPAct, 1966 will not be permissible.24. Section 40 of the MLRC, 1966 as extracted above, vests almostabsolute right in the State Government to dispose of any land orproperty of the Government on such terms and conditions as itdeems fit. The language in which Section 40 is couched leaves noroom of doubt that the right of the State Government to dispose ofany of its land or property is irrespective of any provision of MLRC,1966 for the reason of opening phrase occurring in Section 40 is"nothing contained in any provision of this Code". Thus, we are of theopinion that by operation of Section 40 of the MLRC, 1966, the StateGovernment is vested with right to dispose of any land of theGovernment on such terms and conditions which are to bedetermined by it irrespective of any other provision available inMRLC, 1966 including Section 22A. Such, an interpretation ofSection 40 qua Section 22A of the MLRC, 1966 is based on therationale that the Government is the absolute owner of its ownproperty and land and hence, putting any fetter on the right of theGovernment to dispose of any property on the terms and conditionsto be determined by it, in our opinion, will not be permissible andtherefore, in the view of the Court, notwithstanding the prohibitioncontained in Section 22A of the MLRC, 1966, the Government stillwill have all the authority and power to dispose of its land.….….27. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find that the Collector, whilegranting the subject land to respondent No.4 - Corporation for apublic project of constructing houses for economically weakersection of the society under the Central Government Scheme(PMAY) has committed any illegality or contravened any statutoryprovision. We are, thus, not persuaded to interfere in the impugnedorder of allotment.….….30. As already observed above, the State Government is vested withalmost absolute power to dispose of any land or property of theGovernment on the terms and conditions to be determined by it.A perusal of the impugned order shows that the State Government,in the Department of Revenue and Forest, vide its letter dated 26thApril 2018, only informed the Collector that the Government hadreceived a proposal to transfer the subject land to respondent No.4 -Corporation for developing the houses under the PMAY foreconomically weaker section. By the said letter dated 26th April 2018the State Government only directed that the Collector should takeappropriate decision at his level regarding providing subject land to 16 WP / 1957 / 2025+respondent No.4 – Corporation on appropriate terms or on suchterms and conditions as the Collector may deem it appropriate, forthe purposes of constructing houses for economically weaker sectionand low income group beneficiaries under the PMAY. Thus, whatwas provided for by the State Government in its letter dated 26thApril 2018 was that on the proposal to transfer the subject land infavour of respondent No.4, "the Collector should take appropriatedecision at his level". Therefore, the contents of the letter dated 26thApril 2018 of the State Government cannot be termed, in anymanner, as any kind of the diktat to the Collector; rather the Collectorwas only asked to consider the proposal and take decision at hislevel, meaning thereby the discretion of the Collector was not takenaway by the State Government. In our opinion, the letter dated 26thApril 2018 of the State Government cannot be construed to meanthat the same contained any kind of diktat from the StateGovernment which would have compelled the Collector to surrenderhis discretion.”17.As can be understood, the issue before the division benchwas of a similar kind except with the change that a portion of the gairanland was sought to be utilized and was allotted for developing thehouses under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna, for economically weakersection, whereas in the matters in hand, solar energy panels are beingerected.18.We are in respectful agreement with the view and theconclusions of the division bench in the matter of Santosh MadhukarBhondve (supra). There is no material or distinguishing feature for usto consider. It is a matter of use of a gairan land for erecting solarenergy panels. The state government has the authority to grant leasesthereof under section 38 and has all the powers under section 22Aread with section 40 of the MLRC to use a portion thereof. The onlything which we wish to add is the fact that in none of these petitions, 17 WP / 1957 / 2025+there is any challenge put up to the vires of any of the afore-mentionedprovisions of the MLRC.19.In view of such a state-of-affairs, it cannot be said that theaction which is impugned in some of these petitions, in the light of theafore-mentioned issue which we have culled down, is not sustainable.20.It is evident that one of the limb of the argumentsaddressed to us was not before the division bench which decidedSantosh Madhukar Bhondve. Some of the learned advocates for thepetitioners before us raked up the issue regarding absence of anyresolution by the Gramsabha or Grampanchayat, as is required by thegovernment resolution dated 12.07.2011.21.Once having already concluded that the policy that wasevolved pursuant to the directions in the matter of Jagpal Singh hasmerged into a statutory provision under section 22A, the policies thatwere evolved to meet the contingency in the form of passing ofgovernment resolution dated 12.07.2011, will have to give way to suchstatutory provision. What was, may be, amorphous, has now beencrystallized into a statutory provision and all the earlier governmentresolutions can only be subservient to section 22A. Therefore, thesubmission of the learned advocate for the petitioners will have to beconsidered only within the parameters and scheme under section 22A 18 WP / 1957 / 2025+and one cannot legally refer to the stipulations in the earliergovernment resolutions including the government resolution dated12.07.2011.22.True it is, in sub-section 7 of section 22A, which is a non-obstante clause, it has been mentioned that notwithstanding anythingcontained in the earlier sub-sections, no gairan land in the scheduledareas shall be diverted or disposed of without the prior informedconsent of the Gramsabha concerned and the Gramsabha would meana Gramsabha as mentioned in section 54-1A(b) of the MaharashtraVillage Panchayats Act, 1959. Apparently, no similar restriction findsplace in respect of the gairan lands which situate in the villages whichdo not fall in the scheduled areas. Meaning thereby that if a gairanland which is not a part of the village from a scheduled area can bediverted or disposed of even without prior informed consent of theGramsabha concerned. In this respect, the learned GovernmentPleader Mr. Girase made an emphatic statement repeatedly that noneof the villages in respect of which these petitions have been filed, fall inthe scheduled areas. When such a stand of Mr. Girase has goneuncontroverted and none of the advocates of any of these petitionersmade any attempt to dislodge such argument, we can proceed on thepremise that the fact situation stands undisputed. 19 WP / 1957 / 2025+23.Consequently, in the absence of the villages in thesepetitions being part of scheduled areas, there is no such restriction onthe state government to seek any prior informed consent of anyGramsabha for setting up the solar energy panels, as is required bysub-section 7 of section 22A of the MLRC.24.Another aspect which needs consideration is, as is thewording of sub-section 2 of section 22A, whether the decision to allot aportion of the gairan land for erection of solar energy panels ispreceded by any enquiry into the aspect, as to whether any othersuitable piece of gairan land was available for the project. Mr. Girase,learned Government Pleader again made an emphatic statement that itis only after ascertaining the fact of absence of any other suitable landthat the solar energy panels are being set up. Again, even this stand ofthe state, apart from being the fact that is not exactly a ground beingresorted to in any of these petitions, has gone without demur.25.We have had an occasion to hear the arguments oflearned advocates for the petitioners and Mr. Girase repetitively sincethere are number of advocates and number of petitions, over fewdates. In spite of discussion and arguments on the point of non-availability of suitable piece of land or otherwise, none of the advocatesseek to place something on the record to belie the stand of Mr. Girase 20 WP / 1957 / 2025+regarding absence of any other suitable government land for erectingthe solar energy panels. 26.In the light of above, there is no merit in any of thesepetitions and those are liable to be dismissed.27.The writ petitions are dismissed.28.Rule in all these petitions is discharged. [ Y.G. KHOBGRADE ] [ MANGESH S. PATIL ] JUDGE JUDGEarp/