Bombay High Court

SUSHANT DNYANOBA SUTARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. ITS URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND ORS

Decided: 11 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The interim application is disposed of without granting relief, with directions for measurement and demarcation while leaving the merits of the case open.

Summary

The petitioner filed a public interest litigation seeking restoration of a public road, revocation of commencement certificates, demolition of alleged unauthorized construction, prosecution of the builder, and a status‑quo order. The respondents challenged the maintainability of the PIL, arguing that the petitioner was merely pursuing his own grievance. The court noted that the core dispute is whether the builder has encroached on public land and that a physical demarcation in the presence of the parties is required. It declined to issue any interim writ, including a status‑quo order, and did not entertain a notice to the municipal corporation. The court disposed of the interim application, directing that the Pune Municipal Commissioner be shown the order within two weeks and that the site be measured within six weeks, leaving the substantive merits untouched.

Issues considered

Whether the PIL is maintainable when the petitioner appears to be advancing his own private grievance.
Whether interim relief, including a status‑quo order, should be granted pending the final disposal of the writ petition.
Whether the court should direct demarcation and measurement of the alleged encroachment on public land.
Whether notice should be issued to the Pune Municipal Corporation for verification.

Legislation cited

Constitution of India — s. Article 226

Subjects

Public Interest Litigation
Encroachment
Public road
Mandamus
Article 226
Interim relief
Demarcation
Municipal Corporation

Judgment

Digitally
signed by
CHITRA
CHITRA SANJAY
SANJAY SONAWANE
SONAWANE Date:
2026.09.13
17:12:44
+0530

61-IA-6162-2026 (C).odt

Chitra Sonawane

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6162 OF 2026
IN
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.24 OF 2026

Sushant Dnyanoba Sutar ...Applicant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra
Thr. Its Urban Development Department
And Ors. ...Respondents
...
Mr. Kamran S. Shaikh a/w Ranveersingh A. Solanki for the
Applicant.

Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, GP a/w Mrs. Shruti D. Vyas, Addl. G.P.,

Mr. S.P. Kamble, AGP for the Respondent No.1.

Mr.Prashant Darandale a/w Bajrang M. Solanke for
Respondent No.6.
...

CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.

DATE : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2026.

P.C.:
1. Heard Mr Kamran Shaikh, learned Counsel for the

Petitioner and Mr Prashant Darandale, learned Counsel for

Respondent No.6.

1
61-IA-6162-2026 (C).odt

2. The instant Public Interest Litigation (in short 'PIL') is

preferred inter alia seeking following reliefs :

A. This Hon'ble Court by invoking powers under Art. 226
of the constitution of India and may be pleased to issue
the writ of Mandamus or any other writ and direct the
Respondents to restore the 9-meter-wide public road
infront of Hissa No.9, S. No. 152(Old), S. No. 2/9 (New),
Sutarwadi, Pashan, Pune.

B. This Hon'ble Court by invoking powers under Art. 226
of the Constitution of India may issue appropriate writ,
in the nature of Mandamus and direct the Respondent
No. 2, 3 and 4 to revoke the commencement certificate
C.C. No. 3477/21 dated 02.02.2022, and all the revised
commencement certificates issued by the Respondent No.
2 to the Respondent No. 6 and 7 arising out of the
building proposals of Natu Dhamale Constructions, at
Hissa No.9, S. No. 152(Old), S. No. 2/9 (New),
Sutarwadi, Pashan, Pune.

C. This Hon'ble Court by invoking powers under Art. 226
of the constitution of India and may be pleased to issue
a writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order in the like
nature and may be pleased to direct the Respondent no.
2, 3 and 4 to demolish the unauthorized construction
carried out by Respondent No. 6 on Hissa No.9, S. No.
152(Old), S. No.2/9 (New), Sutarwadi, Pashan, Pune.

D. This Hon'ble Court by invoking powers under Art. 226
of the constitution of India and may be pleased to issue
the writ of Mandamus or any other writ and direct the
Respondent No. 2 to prosecute the Respondent No. 6
under the relevant laws.

E. Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Writ
Petition, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct all
the Respondents to maintain status quo on Hissa No.9,
S. No. 152(Old), S. No. 2/9 (New), Sutarwadi, Pashan,
Pune Peth.

2
61-IA-6162-2026 (C).odt

F. Ad interim and Interim relief in terms of prayer clause
'E' in favor of the Petitioner may be granted.

G. Any other suitable and equitable relief may kindly be
granted in favor of Petitioner in the interest of justice and
equity.

3. At the outset, learned Counsel for Respondent-State

raised an objection qua the maintainability of the instant PIL,

on the premise that the Petitioner is infact espousing his own

cause. He submits that an earlier Civil Writ Petition No.12981

of 2025 filed by the Petitioner, was dismissed as withdrawn

and leave was taken to prefer the PIL before appropriate Bench.

Moreover, in the said proceedings, the Petitioner agitated his

own grievances and subsequently on the same grounds

preferred this PIL.

4. Learned Counsel for the Respondents would urge that

even though this PIL is filed pursuant to the leave accorded by

the Division Bench vide its Order (supra), the PIL be dismissed

on merits. As the PIL Petitioner is espousing his own

interest/cause in the guise of the PIL, which is legally

impermissible.

5. From the submissions at the Bar, it appears that the

grievance of the parties is only qua the measurement and

3
61-IA-6162-2026 (C).odt

demarcation of the holding and whether the Respondent No.6

has encroached upon public land. It appears that even

previously, a Notice has been issued by the Municipal

Corporation to hold physical verification and demarcation, as

to whether construction was over the public road. This was

stated to be refused by the Petitioner.

4. Confronted with this situation, learned Counsel for the

Petitioner fairly submits that the core issue is to determine

whether the Petitioner or Respondent No.6 has encroached

upon public land. Learned Counsel for the parties express no

objection, in case direction is issued to the

Respondent/Authority to carry out demarcation in presence of

the parties. Similar request has also been made by the Pune

Municipal Corporation. At this stage, we are not inclined to

issue notice to Pune Municipal Corporation.

5. The Public Interest Litigation stands Disposed Of with

following directions :

(i) This order be placed before the Pune Municipal

Commissioner/Competent Authority within two weeks

from uploading of this Order.

4
61-IA-6162-2026 (C).odt

(ii) We expect the actual measurement of the site in

question to be made in presence of parties, within six

weeks thereafter.

(iii) We further clarify that we have not adverted to the

merits of the case, leaving all contentions of the parties

open.

(iv) In view of the above, nothing survives in the Interim

Application and the same is Disposed Of.

[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…