35-PIL-104-2025.doc Digitally signed IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY by HARISH HARISH VITHALVITHAL CHAUDHARI CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CHAUDHARI Date: 2026.08.18 19:54:08 +0530 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 104 OF 2025 Ramdas Suryabhan Khade ...Petitioner. Versus The State Of Maharashtra Throu. Principal Sec. Dept Of Revenue And Others ...Respondents. —————— Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni for the Petitioner. Mr. Siddheshwar B. Kalel AGP for the Respondent-State. —————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh & Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ. Date : August 18, 2026. P. C. : 1. The PIL petition is in respect of preserving and protecting the Devasthan lands of Respondent Nos. 5 to 7. 2. Reliance is placed on the report of the Tahsildar dated 26.08.2024, based on the complaint by the present PIL petitioner, in respect of Mhasvadsiddh Dev, Revansiddha Dev, Tryambakeshwar Dev and Sitaramchandra Dev. The report of the Tahsildar states that in respect of the land belonging to the Devasthan, there has been an application by the occupants of the land for deletion of the "Devasthan Inam Class-3" remark and for conversion of Devasthan Inam Class-3 lands into Occupancy Class-1. Harish 1 of 3 35-PIL-104-2025.doc

3. Mr. Kulkarni submits that a systematic fraud has been played, as such applications are iled and orders are being passed in respect thereof by the Hon’ble Minister, which is reported by the Tahsildar. He would further point out order of this Court dated 11.12.2025, which disapproves the manner in which the Devasthan lands are being dealt with and disposed of as indicated in the report of the Tahsildar. He would further point out the aidavit-in-reply of Respondent No. 1, stating that a minimum period of six months is required to hear the concerned parties and issue orders after providing them with an equal opportunity to present their case. 4. We have perused the report of the Tahsildar dated 26.08.2024. The report is in respect of the Devasthan lands, and it is stated that in respect of those lands, the remark was of Devasthan Inam Class-3, and upon applications being iled by the occupants before the Hon'ble Minister for the purpose of deletion of the Devasthan Inam Class-3 remark, the Hon'ble Minister has allowed those applications and has deleted the remark. From the report of the Tahsildar, it appears that the applications were iled before the Hon'ble Minister, who has adjudicated the applications. There does not appear to be any further challenge to the order of the Hon'ble Minister. 5. As the Respondent-State has taken note of the grievance of the PIL petitioner and has iled an aidavit dated 24-02-2026 of the Joint Harish 2 of 3 35-PIL-104-2025.doc

Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, stating that the process of reviewing the orders at the government level is currently underway and a minimum period of six months is required to hear the concerned parties and issue orders, the grievances raised in the PIL petition are addressed. 6. As the Respondent State is now seized of the orders and has proposed to hear the concerned parties and issue appropriate orders, the PIL petition can be disposed of. The PIL petition is disposed of accordingly. 7. It is open for the PIL petitioner to revive the cause, in the event, it is found that the grievance still subsists due to inaction on part of the respondents. [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] Harish 3 of 3

35-PIL-104-2025.doc Digitally signed IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY by HARISH HARISH VITHALVITHAL CHAUDHARI CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CHAUDHARI Date: 2026.08.18 19:54:08 +0530 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 104 OF 2025 Ramdas Suryabhan Khade ...Petitioner. Versus The State Of Maharashtra Throu. Principal Sec. Dept Of Revenue And Others ...Respondents. —————— Mr. Ashutosh Kulkarni for the Petitioner. Mr. Siddheshwar B. Kalel AGP for the Respondent-State. —————— Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh & Neeraj P. Dhote, JJ. Date : August 18, 2026. P. C. : 1. The PIL petition is in respect of preserving and protecting the Devasthan lands of Respondent Nos. 5 to 7. 2. Reliance is placed on the report of the Tahsildar dated 26.08.2024, based on the complaint by the present PIL petitioner, in respect of Mhasvadsiddh Dev, Revansiddha Dev, Tryambakeshwar Dev and Sitaramchandra Dev. The report of the Tahsildar states that in respect of the land belonging to the Devasthan, there has been an application by the occupants of the land for deletion of the "Devasthan Inam Class-3" remark and for conversion of Devasthan Inam Class-3 lands into Occupancy Class-1. Harish 1 of 3 35-PIL-104-2025.doc

3. Mr. Kulkarni submits that a systematic fraud has been played, as such applications are iled and orders are being passed in respect thereof by the Hon’ble Minister, which is reported by the Tahsildar. He would further point out order of this Court dated 11.12.2025, which disapproves the manner in which the Devasthan lands are being dealt with and disposed of as indicated in the report of the Tahsildar. He would further point out the aidavit-in-reply of Respondent No. 1, stating that a minimum period of six months is required to hear the concerned parties and issue orders after providing them with an equal opportunity to present their case. 4. We have perused the report of the Tahsildar dated 26.08.2024. The report is in respect of the Devasthan lands, and it is stated that in respect of those lands, the remark was of Devasthan Inam Class-3, and upon applications being iled by the occupants before the Hon'ble Minister for the purpose of deletion of the Devasthan Inam Class-3 remark, the Hon'ble Minister has allowed those applications and has deleted the remark. From the report of the Tahsildar, it appears that the applications were iled before the Hon'ble Minister, who has adjudicated the applications. There does not appear to be any further challenge to the order of the Hon'ble Minister. 5. As the Respondent-State has taken note of the grievance of the PIL petitioner and has iled an aidavit dated 24-02-2026 of the Joint Harish 2 of 3 35-PIL-104-2025.doc

Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, stating that the process of reviewing the orders at the government level is currently underway and a minimum period of six months is required to hear the concerned parties and issue orders, the grievances raised in the PIL petition are addressed. 6. As the Respondent State is now seized of the orders and has proposed to hear the concerned parties and issue appropriate orders, the PIL petition can be disposed of. The PIL petition is disposed of accordingly. 7. It is open for the PIL petitioner to revive the cause, in the event, it is found that the grievance still subsists due to inaction on part of the respondents. [Neeraj P. Dhote, J.] [Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.] Harish 3 of 3