23 - WP - 4406 - 2022.docx IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4406 OF 2022 The Sangli Bar Association, Sangli & Anr. …Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Department of Finance & Ors. …Respondents Mr. Siyal F. Magdum i/by Pankaj Deshmukh and Umesh R. Mankapure for the Petitioners. Mr. V. M. Mali, AGP for the State. CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV & NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED : JULY 31, 2026 P.C.: 1. We have heard Mr. Magdum, learned Advocate for the Petitioners. He has taken us through the grievance of the Petitioners which is prima facie seen in the averments made in the Petition and the photographs which are annexed and appended to the Petition. 2. The grievance of the Petitioners is that due to the flood condition in the year 2019 for nearly four days, the entire District Court building was submerged in 12 feet of water and there was all around destruction VRJ 1 VAIBHAV RAMESH JADHAV Digitally signed by VAIBHAV RAMESH JADHAV Date: 2026.08.03 19:36:59 +0530 23 - WP - 4406 - 2022.docx of documents, computer data etc., and the work of the Court was paralysed for nearly two months. 3. We have understood the issue raised by the Petitioners that due to the flood-like situation which may occur whenever there is heavy monsoon and heavy rains, there needs to be an alternate arrangement. The Petitioners have suggested some vacant land lying adjacent to the District Court and the Collector's Office in Sangli. 4. The Petitioners have sought the allotment of alternate land adjacent to the existing Sangli District and Sessions Court in the area known as Vijaynagar. The Petitioners have contended that the said land is gairan land not being used by anybody. The Petitioners contend that the said land has been allocated to the District Court and the Collector. The requirement of the Petitioners is of three acres as stated in the Petition for shifting the District Court building. Affidavit-in-reply is filed by the Government which is appended at page No.44 to the Petition. In the said affidavit-in-reply, in paragraph Nos.5, 6, and 7, the following averments are made: “5. I further say that the Gat Nos which are prescribed by the petitioner presently falls within the jurisdiction of Agricultural Department of State Government. I say that as per GR dated 17th October, 2011 it is clarified that no government land which is under cultivation of Fruit Crop Nursery can be transferred and the same fact is informed by Principal secretary to the District Collector by letter dated 21.04.2010 Annexed herewith as Exhibit-R2 is copy of GR is a dated 17th October, 2011. 6. I say that therefore none of the land under cultivation of Fruit Crop VRJ 2 23 - WP - 4406 - 2022.docx Nursery can be transferred by Agricultural Department being a policy decision of the state. 7. I further say that on the said Gat No. i.e. 77/1, 81/1, 79/1, 80, 81/1 the answering respondent has already setup an Agricultural Mall which is quite an innovative project for the cultivation and Marketing of Organic Fruits and vegetables for the benefit of local consumers.” 5. We have gone through the same. Issues such as those which are mentioned in the Petition are matters of policy and are required to be taken cognizance of by the State. We direct that the Petition be treated as an application and placed before the concerned Department as an application on behalf of the Petitioners, namely, the Sangli Bar Association, Sangli and the Consumer Practitioner Advocate Bar Association, Sangli, and direct the State to take an appropriate decision with regard to the grievance expressed by the Petitioners for the allocation of any alternate land in accordance with law. 6. We request the State Government to consider the request made by the Petitioners and see if the same can be considered in accordance with law. 7. Needless to state that the representatives of the Sangli Bar Association, Sangli and the Consumer Practitioner Advocate Bar Association, Sangli shall be given hearing, if so required, while determining the issue of allotment of alternate land. 8. We cannot keep the present Petition pending for no valid reason, as this will subserve no purpose whatsoever. VRJ 3 23 - WP - 4406 - 2022.docx 9. The Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above directions. 10. Liberty to the Petitioners to apply to the Court in case of any difficulty. (NANDESH S. DESHPANDE, J.) (MILIND N. JADHAV, J.) VRJ 4