MANIK TUKARAM KARCHE AND OTHERSversusEXECUTIVE ENGINEER MIDC OFFICE CHH SAMBHAJINAGAR

2026:BHC-AUG:41880
                                             1                         901 & 904-WP-12152-2026.odt




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                                901 WRIT PETITION NO. 12152 OF 2026

                                 Rajendra Madhavrao Patil And Another
                                                VERSUS
                            Executive Engineer Midc Office Chh Sambhajinagar

                                                AND
                                904 WRIT PETITION NO. 12189 OF 2026

                              Manik Tukaram Karche And Others
                                          VERSUS
                      Executive Engineer Midc Office Chh Sambhajinagar
                                             ...
             Mr. Gawande Sambhaji Ankushrao for the Petitioners.
                                             ...

                                      CORAM        : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.
                                      DATE         : 10.09.2026
             PER COURT :


             1.              The learned Advocate for the Petitioners places on record the

             communication dated 7th September, 2026, intimating the Deputy

             Engineer, MIDC, Railway Station Road, Chh. Sambhajinagar, about the

             filing of the present Writ Petitions and further informing him that the

             matter would be listed for admission today. Despite such intimation, none

             appears for the MIDC. Hence, considering the urgency in the matters,

             matters are being heard. The said communication is taken on record and

             marked as ‘X’ for identification.

             2.              The Petitioners are apprehending the demolition of the

             structure that is a construction over the Plot Nos.RM-140, 125 and 141


             Sunny Thote
                              2                          901 & 904-WP-12152-2026.odt


situated at Bajajnagar, MIDC, Waluj, Chh. Sambhajinagar, which is put to

residential as well as commercial use. It is the case of the Petitioners that

they have instituted R.C.S. Nos. 770 of 2025 and 203 of 2026, seeking an

injunction    against   the   Respondent–MIDC,       Chh.     Sambhajinagar,

restraining it from taking any coercive action pursuant to and in

furtherance of the notice dated 12 th September, 2025 and 20th February,

2026 in their respective Suits, issued by the defendant/MIDC.

3.            The applications filed by the Petitioners below Exhibit-5 have

been rejected, against which the Petitioners have also filed Misc. Civil

Appeal No.133 of 2026 and 134 of 2026, before the District Court,

Aurangabad. In these Misc. Civil Appeals a prayer is made for

continuation of the existing status quo order that was granted vide order

8th May, 2026. However, the learned Judge of the District Court has

issued notice making returnable on 16th September, 2026, without

granting any interim protection of continuation of status quo order. It is

submitted that the MIDC has issued a fresh notice for demolition on 4 th

September, 2026, calling upon the Petitioners to remove the so called

unauthorized construction within seven days from receiving the notice.

According to the Petitioners, Section 53(1)(a) of the Maharashtra

Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (of the ‘Said Act, 1966’), which

pertains to removal of unauthorized development contemplates notice

period of at least one month for taking necessary steps as specified in the

notice, which has not been followed in the present cases. Although the
Sunny Thote
                              3                         901 & 904-WP-12152-2026.odt


previous communication has been issued on 15 th April, 2026 against

which they have filed a suits before the learned Trial Court, the

Respondent/MIDC has claimed in the suit that, it is not a notice, but only

a intimation given by the Respondent/MIDC.

4.            It is also observed by the learned Judge of the Trial Court,

while deciding the Exhibit-5 applications, that a fresh notice is required

to be issued before any demolition. The learned Judge of the Trial Court

rejecting the application has observed that the Respondent/MIDC can

take action in respect of unauthorized construction by following the due

procedure of law. In view of the observations made by the learned Civil

Judge Senior Division, the Respondents have issued a fresh notice on 4 th

September, 2026 requiring the Petitioners to remove the unauthorized

construction within a period of seven days. The notice dated 4 th

September, 2026 is contrary to Section 53(1)(a) of the Said Act, 1966,

since the said section contemplates a notice period of at least one month.

5.            The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that,

although the Petitioners have filed an application seeking continuation of

the status quo order in the pending M.C.A. Nos. 133 of 2026 and 134 of

2026 on 5th September, 2026, the said application have not yet been

heard by the District Court, Aurangabad. Therefore, he submits that the

Petitioners are constrained to approach this Court. He further submits

that the next date in the said matters is 16th September, 2026.



Sunny Thote
                               4                          901 & 904-WP-12152-2026.odt


6.            Considering the apprehension expressed by the Petitioners,

in my view, it would be appropriate to grant interim protection to the

Petitioners by continuing the status quo order till 16 th September, 2026,

i.e., till the date of hearing of the Misc. Appeals filed by the Petitioners

even without issuing any notice to the Respondents as this is only an

interim arrangement, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of

the parties. Accordingly, the order of status quo shall continue to operate

till the hearing of M.C.A. Nos. 133 of 2026 and 134 of 2026 filed by the

Petitioners on 16th September, 2026.

7.            The learned District Judge shall thereafter decide the said

applications of the Petitioners on its own merits without being influenced

by any observations made by this Court in the present Writ Petitions.

8.            All the contentions of the respective parties are kept open to

be agitated before the District Judge.

9.            In view of the directions, these Writ Petitions stand disposed

off.

10.           Parties to act on authenticated copy of this order.




                                            [ MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. ]




Sunny Thote