The Bombay High Court has quashed a State Minister's order converting Devsthan Inam Class III land into Class I Old Tenure, holding that a Minister cannot assume statutory functions entrusted by law to designated authorities. The Court observed that even the State Government cannot take over the powers of a statutory authority or compel it to exercise its discretion in a particular manner.

Justice Amit Borkar was hearing a writ petition filed challenging an order passed by the State Minister on April 28, 2014, concerning Devsthan Inam land. The Minister had converted the land from Class III Inam to Class I Old Tenure, directed the Tahsildar to declare certain private respondents as owners under Sections 32-G and 70-B of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (BTAL Act), and granted permission under Section 43 for transfer of the land.

The land had been granted to the deity, Shri Bhairavdev, on May 21, 1862, as Class III Inam land. The petitioners contended that no provision of law empowered the Minister to convert Devsthan Inam land into Class I land or to direct the Tahsildar to declare private parties as owners under the BTAL Act.

The Court relied on its earlier decision in Suvarna Appasaheb Kshirsagar v. State of Maharashtra [(2025) 3 High Court Cases (Bom) 39], which held that Section 8(3) of the Exemptions from Land Revenue (No. 1) Act, 1863 imposes an absolute bar on the transfer or alienation of Devsthan Inam land.

“… the State Government has no power to grant exemption from the prohibition on transfer of Devsthan Inam land imposed under Section 8(3) of the Exemptions from Land Revenue (No.1) Act, 1863,” the Court had held.

Based on the aforesaid legal position, the Court held that the Minister's direction converting the land from Class III Inam to Class I tenure was therefore without jurisdiction.

“The Minister could not have issued such a direction. The power to decide whether a person is entitled to be declared a tenant or purchaser under these provisions is vested in the authority appointed under the BTAL Act,” the Court observed.

The Court further observed that the authority empowered under the BTAL Act must independently examine the facts and evidence. The State Government could neither decide that question itself nor compel the statutory authority to reach a particular conclusion.

“The Minister could not have directed the authority under the BTAL Act to exercise its statutory discretion in a particular manner. The power to consider an application and decide whether permission should be granted is vested in the authority under the Act. Such power has to be exercised by that authority independently and in accordance with law,” the Court remarked.

Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Chandrika Jha v. State of Bihar [(1984) 2 SCC 41], the Court reiterated that even a Chief Minister cannot arrogate to himself statutory functions entrusted to a designated authority. The Court cautioned that while a Minister may exercise administrative or supervisory powers permitted by law, such powers do not authorise him to take over functions specifically assigned to a statutory authority.

Accordingly, the High Court quashed clauses 2 to 5 of the Minister's impugned order.

Case Title: Samasth Gavkari Mandal, Rithe (AOP) v. Krishna Tukaram Teli (Shelkar) [Writ Petition No. 5707 of 2017]