AMBADAS KACHARU KAMBLE AND OTHERSversusTHE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SHIRDI THR CHIEF OFFICER

2026:BHC-AUG:46998


                                                   1                        902.odt


                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                              WRIT PETITION NO. 13447 OF 2026
                         AMBADAS KACHARU KAMBLE AND OTHERS
                                       VERSUS
                     THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SHIRDI THR CHIEF OFFICER
                                                  ...
                      Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Kulkarni Sanket S.
                          Advocate for Respondent : Mr. A.V. Hon
                                             …
                                  CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.
                                   DATE : 01ST OCTOBER, 2026
              PER COURT :

              1.           The Petitioners are challenging the order dated 19.09.2026,

              passed by the District Judge-1, Rahata, District Ahmednagar, rejecting

              the Miscellaneous Civil Appeal no. 07/2025, filed by the Petitioners

              against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rahata,

              dated 08.04.2025, refusing the relief to the Petitioners in Application at

              Exhibit 5.


              2.           The Petitioners have filed a suit i.e. Regular Civil Suit no.

              90/2025, seeking a declaration that the notice issued to the Petitioners

              dated 14.02.2025, for removal of the unauthorized constructions made by

              them is illegal. During the pendency of the suit the Petitioners have filed

              Exhibit 5 Application seeking stay to the notice.


              3.           The learned Advocate Mr. Sanket Kulkarni, for the
                                     2                        902.odt


Petitioners contended that the notice dated 14.02.2025, is a defective

notice, since it lacks specification as to what extent encroachment is

made by the Petitioners. The notice is issued under Sections 179 and 189

of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial

Townships Act, 1965 as well as Sections 52 to 55 of the Maharashtra

Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.


4.           According to the learned Advocate for the Petitioners, the

notice only states that there are encroachments on the land under

Reservation No. 11, which is reserved for a garden, as well as on the 9

meter and 15 meter Development Plan roads. It does not specify anything

except the encroachment made by them. It is further submitted that they

are in possession of the portion of property on which they have

constructed their houses since last more than 50 years and they have also

filed their regularization applications pursuant to the government

resolution dated 25.03.2026.


5.           In view thereof, according to him, considering that the

notice is defective, a prima facie case is made out by the Petitioners, and

since they have been in possession for the last 50 years, the balance of

convenience also lies in their favour. In support of his submission, he has

relied upon the decisions of this Court of the co-ordinate bench dated
                                     3                         902.odt


24.01.2020, in Second Appeal no. 41/2006 in case of Liyakat Ali Ismail

Muniwale Versus Chief Officer, Municipal Council and Others, as well as

dated 27.02.2026 in Writ Petition no. 1697/2026 in case of Satish

Madhavrao Pingle Versus The State of Maharashtra and Others along with

other Writ Petitions.


6.           After going through the said order passed in Writ Petition

no. 1697/2026 by this Court, I find that the facts in the present case and

the facts in the aforementioned Writ Petition are totally different. Since

the Petitioners in that Writ Petition are the owners and possessors of the

land on the basis of registered sale deed which is executed in their favour,

whereas in the present case, the Petitioners are the encroachers of the

land of the Municipal Council.


7.           Per contra, learned Senior Advocate Mr. Hon, appearing for

the Respondent/Municipal Council submitted that in fact, it is the burden

on the Plaintiffs to give the details of the property along with the sketch

map of the land which is possessed by them, which is not given in the

plaint itself. He submits that in fact, the Municipal Council has received

certain funds for carrying out the development work which is to be

completed before the Kumbh Mela festival, which is held at Nashik. He

submits that even though reliance is placed on the government resolution,
                                      4                         902.odt


providing for regularization of the encroachers in the government land,

the Applications filed by the Petitioners for such regularization has

already been turned down vide communication dated 03.06.2026.

Therefore, there is no question of any regularization. He also pointed out

from the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division,

Rahata, that the Petitioners have alternate lands and a list of the lands

owned by them is already produced on record of the Court at Exhibit 26.

Therefore, the balance of convenience would not lie in their favour. In

fact, if such encroachments are continued, it would cause prejudice to the

government and the development work of the city would be hampered.

He also pointed out from the order passed by the Appellate Court that the

Court has made an observation that prima facie, it appears that the

Plaintiffs along with plaint have not given rough sketch map of specific

area of each Plaintiffs of the tin sheds or huts and it is also observed that

the Petitioners have not taken any permission for construction which has

been carried out by them i.e. the huts and the sheds. These are the

unauthorized construction which creates hurdle in the implementation of

the development scheme as per the development plans sanctioned for

Shirdi. The encroachment made is on the reservation for garden and road.

Therefore, it is a responsibility of the Municipal Council to remove such

encroachments.
                                     5                        902.odt


8.           Both the Courts have taken into consideration whether or

not, prima facie case is made out by the Petitioners and held that no,

prima facie case is made out by the Petitioners and balance of

convenience also does not lie in his favour.


9.           After hearing the parties and going through the orders

passed by both the Courts below, I do not find any case for interference is

made out by the Petitioners as they are not able to point out any error

apparent from the orders which warrants interference of this Court. The

law in this regard is settled. The law in this regard is settled in the

decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Wander Limited

Versus Antox India Private Limited, reported in 1990 supp SCC 727 . In case

of grant of injunction, merely because some other view is possible than

the one taken by the Courts below, this Court cannot interference in the

orders passed by the Courts below which is discretionary relief.


10.          In my view, I do not find any ground or error that has been

made out by the Petitioners. As such Writ Petitioner deserves to be

dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed.




                                         ( MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J. )
SPC