Bombay High Court
BALU BABAN BOTREversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS DEPT AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that the petitioners are entitled to file an appeal under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Highways Act within seven days and that coercive action under the notice is stayed pending such appeal.
Summary
The petitioners were served notices under the Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955, to remove alleged encroachments obstructing a road‑widening project in Khalumbre village. Fearing that the authorities would take coercive action, they filed urgent writ petitions seeking relief. The State argued that Section 24 of the Act provides an alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Collector, rendering the writ petition inadmissible. The Court held that the petitioners may indeed invoke the statutory appeal, granting them a seven‑day period from the order to file such appeal. It further stayed any coercive action pending the appeal and ordered that if the appeal decision is adverse, the status quo be maintained for two weeks. Consequently, the writ petitions were disposed with directions to file the appeal and a temporary stay of enforcement.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition is maintainable when the Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955 provides a specific appeal mechanism under Section 24.
- Whether the court can stay coercive action pending the filing and determination of the statutory appeal.
- Whether the petitioners may be granted a fresh period to file an appeal despite the original notice period having lapsed.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955 — s. 21, 23, 24
Subjects
- encroachment
- road widening
- Maharashtra Highways Act
- Section 24 appeal
- writ petition
- stay of execution
- coercive action
- urgent relief
Judgment
502-WP-13539-2026+.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 13539 OF 2026
Balu Baban Botre … Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra and others … Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 13540 OF 2026
SWEETY
RAJU
BHALERAO
Shantram Kuluram Botre and another … Petitioners
Digitally
signed by
SWEETY RAJU
Versus
BHALERAO
Date:
2026.10.09
18:31:06
+0530
State of Maharashtra and others … Respondents
******
Mr. Sachin Deokar, a/w Mr. Priya A. Patil, for Petitioner.
Ms. P.M.J. Deshpande, AGP for Respondent/State in WP/13539/2026.
Ms. Tanu N. Bhatia, AGP for Respondent/State in WP/13540/2026.
******
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
DATE : 09th OCTOBER 2026.
PC:
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGP for the
respondent - State Authorities in both these petitions.
2. These petitions were mentioned in the morning due to urgency and
hence, they were taken on the Production Board.
The petitioners are aggrieved by notices dated 21/08/2026 issued by
Respondent No. 2 - Sub-Divisional Officer, Public Works Sub-Division, Khed,
Bhalerao 1
502-WP-13539-2026+.doc
(Rajgurunagar). The said notices have been issued under the provisions of
the Maharashtra Highways Act, 1955, calling upon the petitioners to remove
“encroachments” as they are obstructing the project of road widening
proposed to be undertaken in Village Khalumbre, Taluka Khed, District Pune.
The notices state that the encroachments are to be removed within 7 days.
3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in pursuance of the
said notices, the respondent - authorities are likely to take coercive steps and
that therefore, there is urgency in the matter.
4. The learned AGP correctly points out that as per section 24 of the
Highways Act, there is an alternative efficacious remedy of appeal available
to the petitioners and that therefore, this writ petition may not be
entertained.
5. Section 24 of the Highways Act reads as follows:
“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
Bhalerao 2
502-WP-13539-2026+.doc
to the appellant and the Highway Authority or such officer. The
Highway Authority or such officer shall till then desist from
taking further action in the matter.”
6. We find substance in the contention raised on behalf of the
respondent - State Authorities that the petitioners can file appeals under the
said provision. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that such appeals are required to be filed within the time period indicated in
the impugned notices, which is already over. It is further submitted that if
this Court permits the appeals to be filed, it may be considered that if the
decisions in the appeals are adverse to the petitioners, they may be given
protection for a limited period to assail such decisions.
7. In view of the above, the writ petitions are disposed of as follows:
(a) The petitioners are granted liberty to file appeals against the
impugned notices under Section 24 of the Maharashtra Highways
Act, 1955, within a period of 7 days from today.
(b) In the event the petitioners file the appeals within the
aforesaid period of 7 days, the appellate authority/Collector shall
entertain the same and proceed to conduct inquiry and record
decision as per the above quoted Section 24 of the Maharashtra
Highways Act.
(c) Till such time that the appeals are pending before the
appellate authority/Collector, coercive action in pursuance of the
impugned notices shall not be taken, which is mandated even
under the above quoted provision.
Bhalerao 3
502-WP-13539-2026+.doc
(d) In the event the decisions in the appeals are adverse to the
petitioners, the status quo shall be maintained for a period of two
weeks.
8. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Bhalerao 4
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.