MUMBAI, Nov. 6 -- The Nagpur bench of the Bombay high court has restrained the Maharashtra government from allotting confiscated Bhoodan land to anyone till it examines the constitutional validity of Section 25 of the Madhya Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1953, which allows land allotted to Bhoodan beneficiaries to vest with the state government if the beneficiaries violate prescribed conditions. The court passed the interim order on a petition filed by Narendra Bais, joint secretary of the Vidarbha Bhoodan Mandal, who claimed that the Section was in contravention of the Act's preamble. Bais contended that the provision defeated the very purpose of the Bhoodan movement, initiated by Acharya Vinoba Bhave in April 1951 at Pochampally in present-day Telangana. During the movement, landowners were persuaded to voluntarily donate portions of their holdings for distribution among landless agricultural labourers, with the objective of addressing rural land inequality and enabling the landless to become farmers. To give legal recognition to these donations, maintain revenue records and facilitate the distribution of land, the then Madhya Pradesh legislature enacted the Madhya Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1953. The law applies to Vidarbha, which was then part of Madhya Pradesh. Section 25 provides that if a Bhoodan landholder breaches any of the conditions specified under Section 24, the revenue officer may conduct an inquiry and determine the holder's rights, following which the land vests with the state government. The Act applies only to Vidarbha, while Bhoodan lands in the rest of Maharashtra are governed by a separate legislation. The petitioner argued that any breach of conditions by a beneficiary should not allow the government to divert the land from the original purpose of the donation. His advocates, Rahul Bhangde and Tejas Bais, submitted that Section 25 was prima facie unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law. They also argued that the provision was also contrary to the objectives of the Bhoodan Yagna Act. The petition cites the provisions of the Bhoodan Act which, according to Bhangde, requires confiscated land to be returned to the Bhoodan Mandal. It also lists five cases between 2024 and 2026 where the revenue authorities treated confiscated land differently: in two cases, the land was returned to the Mandal, while in three others, it was retained by the government. In one of the latter cases, the land was allotted to a residential school early this year. "Our contention is that the government cannot retain the land," said Bhangde. "Vesting such land with the government goes against the preamble of the Act. Moreover, allotting confiscated land to schools or private parties defeats the very purpose of the Bhoodan Act. Our plea is that Section 25 should be struck down and the land should be given back to the Mandal as provided in the preamble." Narendra Bais said the petition had been filed following an increase in the confiscation of Bhoodan land, alleging that this increase was tied to the increasing value of land. "Although the Act provides for confiscation in cases of violations, such action was rare in the past," he said. "With increasing urbanisation and rising land prices, revenue authorities have started insisting on confiscation. Instead of returning the land to the Mandal so that it can be allotted to another landless person, they have begun diverting it for purposes other than those intended under the Act." Bais warned that if the practice continued, it could lead to widespread confiscation of Bhoodan land from beneficiaries and its subsequent allotment to private parties, undermining the movement's original objective. Taking note of the submissions, the high court directed the authorities not to allot any land covered by a government communication dated May 4, 2026, or any other confiscated Bhoodan land until the next hearing. Since the petition challenges the constitutional validity of a statutory provision, the court also directed that notice be issued to the advocate-general....