JUDGMENT : Hiten S. Venegavkar, J. 1. Both these writ petitions, involving identical questions of fact and law, are being disposed of by this common judgment. The petitioners in these petitions invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to regularize their alleged encroachments upon gairan (grazing) land on the basis of the Government Resolution dated 28.11.1991 issued by the State of Maharashtra. 2. In Writ Petition No. 13465 of 2025, the petitioners seek regularization of their occupation over land bearing Gut No. 224, situated at Village Aasadvan, Tq. and Dist. Nanded. In Writ Petition No. 13468 of 2025, the petitioners claim regularization over lands bearing Gut Nos. 33, 34 and 71, situated at Village Gadadgavan, Tq. Jintur, Dist. Parbhani. According to the petitioners, the said lands are gairan lands belonging to the State. 3. The petitioners aver that they belong to Scheduled Caste communities, are landless agricultural labourers, and fall below the poverty line. They state that they have allegedly been in occupation of the government lands for several decades and, therefore, their encroachments deserve regularization in terms of the aforesaid Government Resolution. They further contend that they have submitted several representations from time to time, some are as far back as the 1980’s, they requested regularization, but the authorities failed to take any decision. 4. In Writ Petition No. 13468 of 2025, an additional fact emerges that portions of the very lands encroached upon by the petitioners were mutated and transferred to the Forest Department in the year 1989. Even thereafter, the petitioners claim that their occupation ought to be regularized under the 1991 policy. 5. Learned AGP appearing for the State opposes the petitions contending that the petitioners are admitted encroachers upon Government land and no vested or statutory right exists in their favour which would warrant exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226. It is further argued that repeated representations made and allegedly not decided for decades cannot create a right in favour of encroachers. The AGP relies upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court holding that encroachment upon Government land cannot be directed to be regularized and such lands must be restored for public interest and public purpose. 6. It is further argued that repeated representations made and allegedly not decided for decades cannot create a right in favour of encroachers. The AGP relies upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court holding that encroachment upon Government land cannot be directed to be regularized and such lands must be restored for public interest and public purpose. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned AGP for the State and have perused the material placed on record. Ordinarily, in a case where representations are pending consideration, this Court may direct the authorities to decide them. However, the present matter concerns gairan land, which is property of the State held for public purpose, and any direction to even consider regularization must be examined strictly in the light of the Hon’ble Supreme Court jurisprudence on illegal encroachment. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in decision of Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 396 , has held that public lands, village common lands, grazing lands, forest lands, tanks, and water bodies cannot be permitted to be encroached upon, nor can the Court issue directions for regularization of illegal occupation. The Supreme Court emphatically held that: Encroachers have no equity in their favour. Government land must be protected and restored to its original public use. Courts must not pass orders which encourage encroachment or compel the State to regularize such illegal occupation. Welfare or poverty cannot justify perpetuating illegality against public property These observations apply squarely to the present petitions. 8. Turning now to the Government Resolution dated 28.11.1991 relied upon by the petitioners, particularly Clause 10, the policy clearly mandates that only those encroachers whose names appear in the list prepared by the Collector for the period 01.04.1978 to 14.04.1990 are eligible for regularization. In cases where names are not included, the concerned Sub-Divisional Officer must first conduct an inquiry into occupation, verify eligibility, and only then forward such cases to the Collector for decision. 9. In the present matters, none of the petitioners have demonstrated either in their representations or in these petitions that their names figure in the Collector’s list prepared for the period 1978– 1990, prior to 1990-1991. They have also not pleaded or produced any material to show that the Sub-Divisional Officer has ever conducted the mandatory inquiry contemplated under Clause 10. In the present matters, none of the petitioners have demonstrated either in their representations or in these petitions that their names figure in the Collector’s list prepared for the period 1978– 1990, prior to 1990-1991. They have also not pleaded or produced any material to show that the Sub-Divisional Officer has ever conducted the mandatory inquiry contemplated under Clause 10. The representations merely assert long-standing possession; they do not establish eligibility as per the Government Resolution. Thus, even on the petitioners’ own showing, the foundational requirements of the 1991 Government Resolution are not satisfied. 10. Moreover, in Writ Petition No. 13468 of 2025, the record itself shows that the lands have been transferred to the Forest Department as far back as 1989. Once forest land vests in the Forest Department, not only is the same protected by the Forest Conservation Act, 1980, but also no regularization of encroachment is legally permissible unless permitted by Central Government which the petitioners do not even assert. 11. Even otherwise, the policy of 1991 cannot override statutory protections or subsequent judicial directions of the Supreme Court. The Court cannot, under Article 226, compel the State to regularize encroachment in the face of binding precedent which prohibits such regularization. 12. There is yet another insurmountable obstacle for the petitioners gross delay and laches. The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 13465 claim to have made applications as early as the year 2000, and the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 13468 claim to have approached authorities in the year 1975. They resurfaced only in 2022–2023 seeking regularization under a 1991 policy and thereafter approached this Court in 2025. Such unexplained delay of decades is fatal to a writ petition. The Supreme Court has consistently held that stale claims cannot be revived through writ jurisdiction, especially where government land is involved and third-party rights and public rights stand affected. 13. This Court cannot shut its eyes to the constitutional obligation of the State to protect public lands for community use. Permitting encroachers to remain indefinitely or granting even a direction for “consideration” of regularization would effectively defeat the mandate of the Supreme Court and result in perpetuation of illegality. 14. 13. This Court cannot shut its eyes to the constitutional obligation of the State to protect public lands for community use. Permitting encroachers to remain indefinitely or granting even a direction for “consideration” of regularization would effectively defeat the mandate of the Supreme Court and result in perpetuation of illegality. 14. In view of: (a) the clear law laid down by the Supreme Court prohibiting regularization of government land encroachments; (b) the failure of petitioners to satisfy mandatory requirements of the 1991 Government Resolution; (c) the transfer of some lands to the Forest Department; and (d) the extraordinary delay and laches in approaching this Court, No relief can be granted to the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 15. Consequently, both writ petitions stand dismissed. 16. No order as to costs.