Bombay High Court

BHANUDAS MARUTI RASKARversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: ARUN R PEDNEKER VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV

Holding

The Court declined to entertain the writ petition and disposed of it, allowing the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy under law.

Summary

The petitioner, a doctor, filed a writ petition seeking an order directing the Municipal Corporation (Respondent No.4) to remove encroachments on municipal land and a municipal road in Shrigonda. He alleged that despite his representation, the corporation had only removed encroachments of economically weaker persons, leaving those of financially stronger individuals intact. The corporation initially admitted removal of certain encroachments but later claimed that the remaining structures were authorized constructions owned by the occupants. The petitioner submitted a list of eleven buildings still encroaching, leading to a factual dispute over the nature and legality of the constructions. The Court held that, given the contested facts regarding ownership and authorization, it would not entertain the writ petition and disposed of it, permitting the petitioner to pursue other legal remedies. The petition was therefore dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition for removal of encroachments on municipal land when there is a factual dispute over the nature and authorization of the alleged encroachments.

Subjects

encroachment
municipal land
writ petition
public road
administrative law
municipal corporation
removal of encroachment

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:3395-DB

                                                 1
                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

                                929 WRIT PETITION NO.13708 OF 2021

               Bhanudas Maruti Raskar                                    ..Petitioner
                     Versus
               The State of Maharashtra and Others                       ..Respondents
                                                   …..
                         Shri. Sanjay N. Gaikwad, Advocate for the Petitioner
                            Ms. V. P. Dama, AGP for the Respondent – State.
                             Shri. D. V. Tele, Advocate for Respondent No.2
                          Shri. P. N. Khedkar, Advocate for Respondent No.4
                      Shri. V. P. Narwade, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 5 to 9
                 Shri. S. S. Gangakhedkar, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 11 and 12
                                                   …..

                                              CORAM :       ARUN R. PEDNEKER AND
                                                            VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
                                              Dated     :   JANUARY 17, 2026

               FINAL ORDER :-

               .       The present Petition is filed seeking direction to Respondent No.4-

               Municipal Corporation for removal of encroachment on municipal land

               bearing Gat No.909-A in Shrigonda City and Shrigonda-Wadali

               Municipal Road.



               2.      Learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that, the Petitioner is

               a doctor by profession and runs a clinic and Maharashtra emergency

               medical services etc in the vicinity. He further submits that, certain

               encroachments are made on the approach road and accordingly, the

               Petitioner made representation to Respondent No.4 seeking removal of

               the said encroachments. However, despite the representation, no action
                                2
has been taken yet.



3.    Affidavit is filed by Respondent No.4 dated 17.11.2022 whereby

Respondent No.4 has admitted that, certain encroachments including

Shrigonda-Wadali road would be removed between 25.05.2022 to

28.05.2022. It is submitted by learned Counsel appearing on behalf of

Respondent No.4 that, the encroachments are removed.



4.    Further, affidavit-in-rejoinder filed by the Petitioner dated

08.12.2022 pointing out that certain buildings are still in encroachment

upon the said road, and he has given list of 11 buildings (pg no.27).



5.    It is submitted by learned Advocate for Petitioner that, the action

taken was limited to removal of encroachments of economically weaker

persons, whereas the encroachments of financially strong persons were

not removed. He has also given the list of the properties which have

encroached on the Shrigonda-Wadali road. However, in the Affidavit

filed by Respondent No.4 dated 04.01.2023, it is stated that, the

encroachment, which the Petitioner is alleging, is actually authorized

construction, and the alleged lands, where, according to the petitioner,

encroachments are, are owned by the occupants.



6.    Considering the disputed facts as regards the nature of
                                                             3
                             constructions made, this Court would not entertain the Writ Petition and

                             the Writ Petition is disposed of with liberty to Petitioner to seek

                             appropriate remedy as available under law.




                             (VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.)                  (ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.)

                             GGP




Signed by: Gajanan G. Punde
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 28/01/2026 11:19:08

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…