A recent public interest litigation (PIL) of Govind Kondiba Tanpure & Others v/s The State of Maharashtra, (through the Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department), Mumbai & Others has drawn attention to significant grievances surrounding land allotment practices in village Dhangawadi, Taluka Bhor, District Pune. The petitioners, residents of the village, have called for an investigation into the alleged illegalities in the allotment of land to an educational institution, seeking cancellation of the allotment and a reassessment of land distribution to marginalized communities.

The litigation, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, centers on a parcel of land in Gat No. 237, measuring approximately 14.35 hectares. Key events date back to 1993, when the District Collector reserved a portion of this land for a burial ground. Over the years, various allocations occurred, including land for a Village Extension Scheme aimed at supporting impoverished individuals from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

Despite the intent to provide land to these vulnerable groups, the petitioners allege that the plots designated for them were never transferred. Instead, in 1999 and again in 2008, significant portions of the land were allocated to a private educational institution, referred to as respondent No. 5, which they claim was facilitated by the political influence of respondent No. 4, a former MLA.

The petitioners argue that the allotment was executed without adherence to established procedures and rules, including necessary local approvals. They contend that the land's classification as an industrial zone precludes its use for educational purposes, raising questions about the legality of the allotment process.

Further complicating matters, the petitioners claim ignorance of the land transfers until 2013, despite the entries being made in revenue records as early as 2000. Their request for information under the Right to Information Act unveiled what they allege are unlawful acquisitions by the respondents, prompting their legal action.

In defense, respondents have raised issues of delay, arguing that the petitioners failed to act promptly after the land was allotted. They assert that the PIL is politically motivated and that all proper procedures were followed in the allotment process. Notably, the respondents maintain that the land's use was reclassified in accordance with regional planning guidelines, allowing for educational development.

The legal arguments have drawn on precedents from various cases, emphasizing the principle that public interest litigations must be free from undue delay and that courts retain discretion in hearing such petitions. The respondents argue that the petitioners’ prolonged silence undermines their claims.

The court ultimately dismissed the PIL, citing the significant delay in bringing the case to light, which it deemed detrimental to the interests of the respondents. However, it acknowledged the petitioners' concerns regarding the alleged mortgaging of the land and ordered an inquiry into whether respondent No. 5 violated any lease conditions by doing so.

The Collector has been directed to conduct this inquiry within four months, ensuring both parties have the opportunity to present their evidence. The court also ordered the refund of the petitioners’ deposited amount, emphasizing that while the PIL was dismissed, the issues surrounding land use and allotment still warrant careful examination.

This case underscores the complexities of land allotment practices in India, particularly when intersecting with community rights and governmental procedures. As the inquiry unfolds, it may provide clarity on legal compliance in land use and could set important precedents for future allotment cases, especially regarding the protection of marginalized groups.

  Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988    Right to Information Act, 2005    Constitution of India, 1950