Facts: The petitioners, residents of Rohkal village in Pune, challenged an order passed by the Collector of Pune and a Government Resolution (GR) issued by the State of Maharashtra. The impugned orders facilitated the transfer of approximately 15 hectares of "Gairan Land" (grazing land) at Gat No. 220 to the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) for implementing a residential project under the "Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana-Urban 2.0" (PMAY). The petitioners contended that the transfer was illegal as it bypassed the Pune Metropolitan Region Development Authority (PMRDA), lacked Gram Sabha approval, threatened the eviction of Scheduled Tribe (ST) and Scheduled Caste (SC) inhabitants, and involved the cutting of 5000 trees. They argued the transfer violated Section 22A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, which restricts the diversion of grazing lands.Procedural Posture: The petitioners approached the High Court of Judicature at Bombay by invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.Issue: Whether the State Government and the Collector have the authority to divert "Gairan Land" (grazing land) for public purposes such as social housing projects, and whether such an order is limited by the restrictive provisions of Section 22A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966.Holding: Yes, the State has the authority. The Court held that the transfer was for a valid public purpose and followed the proper legal procedure, dismissing the writ petition.Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the land in question is government-owned, and thus the petitioners have no vested right to its specific use. Under Section 40 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, the State Government possesses an overriding authority to dispose of its land on terms it deems fit, as the section begins with a non-obstante clause "nothing contained in any provision of this Code". Consequently, the general power under Section 40 prevails over the restrictions in Section 22A regarding Gairan land. Furthermore, the Court noted that the project fulfills constitutional obligations under Articles 21 and 39(b) to provide housing for the economically weaker section. The administration had also ensured safeguards by providing alternate land for villagers (Gat No. 223), rehabilitating existing tribal inhabitants on-site, and mandating tree plantation, thereby addressing the petitioners' environmental and social concerns.