SUDAM DASHRATH BOTRE AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS

                                       1
                                                          20-wp-12754-2026.doc

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 12754 OF 2026

Sudam Dashrath Botre and Others                        …Petitioners
      Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Others                    …Respondents

Mr. Mandar Limaye a/w. Mr. Tanmay More and Ms. Anu Pawar, for the
Petitioners.
Mr. Manoj Badgujar, for Respondent No. 4- PMRDA.
Smt. Tanu Bhatia, AGP, for the State.

                             CORAM     : MANISH PITALE AND
                                         SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.

                             DATE      : 29th SEPTEMBER, 2026

P.C. :

1.          The petitioners are aggrieved by impugned notices whereby the

respondent No. 3- Sub-Divisional Engineer of the Public Works Sub-

Division, Khed, Rajgurunagar, District Pune, has called upon the

petitioners to remove "encroachment" on the 12.50 meter width

allegedly forming part of a Major District Road. The notice has been

issued under the provisions of the Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955

(hereinafter referred to as the “Highways Act”). The notices call upon

the petitioners to remove the encroachments within 7 days, failing

which appropriate action would be taken for removal of the

encroachment.

Vishal Parekar                                                                   ….1
                                             2
                                                                      20-wp-12754-2026.doc


2.          The petitioners claim that the land belongs to them and

therefore, even if the respondents intend to construct or widen a road,

the land needs to be acquired and that compensation ought to be paid

as per the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and

Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,

2013.


3.          The learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 authority

has raised a preliminary objection, stating that an alternative remedy

of filing an appeal under Section 24 of the said Act is available to the

petitioners and that they ought to exhaust the said remedy. It is

submitted that therefore, this Court may not entertain the present writ

petition.


4.          We have considered the rival submissions. Section 24 of the

Highways Act reads as follows:

             S.24: Where the person on whom notice to remove an encroachment
             has been served under sub-section (1) of section 23 lays claim that
             the land in respect of which encroachment has been alleged is his
             property or that he has acquired a right over it by virtue of adverse
             possession or otherwise he shall within the time-limit prescribed in
             the notice for the removal of the encroachment, file an appeal before
             the Collector under intimation to the Highway Authority or the officer
             authorized under sub-section (1) of section 21, as the case may be.
             The Collector shall after due enquiry record his decision in writing
             and communicate the same to the appellant and the Highway
             Authority or such officer. The Highway Authority to such officer shall
             till then desist from taking further action in the matter.

Vishal Parekar                                                                               ….2
                                         3
                                                               20-wp-12754-2026.doc


5.               We find that the remedy of appeal under the above-quoted

provision is indeed available to the petitioners in order to raise

grievance with regard to the impugned notices. It is specifically

provided that appeals can be filed within the time limit prescribed in

the notice for removal of encroachment. The petitioners could have

filed such appeals within 7 days of issuance of the impugned notices.

Evidently, they have not done so. Instead, they have approached this

Court invoking writ jurisdiction. The petition has been urgently

circulated on the ground that recently the petitioners have been

threatened with coercive action being taken for removal of the

"encroachments".


6.          We are of the opinion that when a statutory remedy of appeal is

provided under the aforesaid provision of the said Act, whereby the

Collector can conduct a fact-finding inquiry into the matter, it would

be appropriate that the petitioners are relegated to such a remedy and

ancillary directions can be issued to address the apprehension of the

petitioners with regard to coercive action likely to be taken by the

respondents.


7.          In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of as follows:



Vishal Parekar                                                                        ….3
                                     4
                                                              20-wp-12754-2026.doc


      (a) The petitioners are granted liberty to approach the

      appellate authority under Section 24 of the Maharashtra

      Highways Act, 1955, in order to challenge the impugned

      notices.


      (b) The respondents are restrained from taking coercive

      action in pursuance of the impugned notices, subject to the

      petitioners filing appeals under Section 24 of the said Act

      within 7 days from today. Since the said provision itself

      protects noticees during pendency of the appeal, the

      apprehension of the petitioners is duly addressed by the

      aforesaid direction.


      (c) Upon such appeals being filed within the period of 7 days

      from today, the appellate authority shall decide the appeals

      on merits after conducting proper inquiry and giving

      reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.


      (d) This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of

      the matter, and the rights and contentions of the parties are

      kept open.


      (e) It is further directed that in the event adverse orders are


Vishal Parekar                                                                       ….4
                                         5
                                                          20-wp-12754-2026.doc


      passed against the petitioners in the aforesaid appeals by the

      appellate authority, coercive action will not be taken by the

      respondent authorities for a period of two weeks from the

      date of disposal of the appeals.



                 (SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.)      (MANISH PITALE, J.)




Vishal Parekar                                                                   ….5