Bombay High Court
ABDUL HADI ABDUL HAMIDversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR AND ORS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as the matter is not suitable for relief under Article 226 and must be pursued in a civil court.
Summary
The petitioner, Md. Abdul Hadi, claimed that the Chief Officer of Beed Municipal Council illegally dumped garbage on his land (Gut No.125) after exhausting space in a neighboring plot. He alleged that the dumping began around 2021, filed complaints with the municipal officer and police, and sent a legal notice in February 2026 seeking removal of the garbage and compensation of Rs.5 lakh per year. The petition relied on 7/12 extracts, complaints, and photographs, asserting a violation of his property rights and environmental harm. The Court held that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish that the garbage was on the petitioner's land and that the claim for compensation required factual determination unsuitable for a writ petition. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioner to approach a civil court for relief.
Issues considered
- Whether the respondent had the authority to dump garbage on the petitioner's land.
- Whether the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is the appropriate forum for adjudicating the dispute and the claim for compensation.
- Whether the documents on record sufficiently establish the alleged encroachment and damage.
Subjects
- illegal dumping
- property rights
- environmental law
- writ petition
- Article 226
- compensation
- civil court jurisdiction
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:19588-DB
932-wp-4640-2026.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.4640 OF 2026
Md. Abdul Hadi s/o Abdul Hamid .. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
Through Collector, Beed.
2. The Chief Officer,
Beed Municipal Council, Beed.
3. State Pollution Control Board,
Sub-Regional Office, Jalna,
Plot No.p3/1 and p3/2,
Phase-2, MIDC, Jalna.
Or
Prayavaran Bhavan, A-4/1,
MIDC Area, Chikalthana,
Near Dhoot Hospital, Jalna Road,
Chhatrapat Sambhajinagar. .. Respondents
…
Mr. Vinod I. Thole, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S. B. Narwade, AGP for respondents/State.
...
CORAM : SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI &
AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.
DATE : 28 APRIL 2026
ORDER :
. Present petition has been filed for following reliefs :-
“B) The respondents and particular respondent No.2
be directed to remove the garbage from the land gut
No.125 situated at Beed Bodke, Taluka and District Beed
[1]
932-wp-4640-2026.odt
owned by the petitioner by issuing writ of mandamus or
any other writ.
C) The respondent No.2 be directed to pay the
compensation to the petitioner at the rate of rupees 5
lakhs per year from the year 2021 till removal of garbage.”
2. Heard learned Advocate for the petitioner.
3. The petitioner has described his property as bearing Gut No.125, of
which he is the owner to the extent of 2 acres and 22 Gunthas out of the
total area admeasuring 12 H 65 R. The boundaries have also been given.
The petitioner states that he visits Beed intermittently for meeting his
relatives and looking after the properties. According to the petitioner,
about five years ago, respondent No.2 started dumping the garbage in
land Gut No.126, a portion owned by one Nazir s/o Abdul Razak. Said
Nazir is the owner of approximately 3 Acres. The revenue record shows
that about 52 R land was purchased by respondent No.2 from said Nazir.
The petitioner states that there is a road known as Nalwandi Road
abutting to the land of the petitioner from northern side. The owners of
land Gut No.126 are having ingress and aggress from the other way. A
pit was excavated by respondent No.2 in land Gut No.126 and after it
was filled, there was no space left for accumulation of garbage.
Thereafter, respondent No.2 started dumping garbage in the petitioner’s
[2]
932-wp-4640-2026.odt
land taking disadvantage of the absence of the petitioner. The petitioner
had made grievance to respondent No.2 immediately on 15.02.2021 and
requested respondent No.2 to remove the garbage. That notice or
representation was not responded by respondent No.2. Thereafter, the
petitioner consistently approached the office of respondent No.2 with a
request for the removal of garbage from his land, however, the said
request fell on deaf ears. Petitioner has also filed an application on
14.02.2021 with the Rural Police Station, Beed. A legal notice was given
on 23.02.2026 to respondent No.2 for the removal of garbage. The
petitioner states that respondent No.2 has no right to dump the garbage
in the land of the petitioner. Not only the personal rights of the petitioner
over the property are infringed, but the act on the part of respondent
No.2 is causing damage to the environment.
4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner has taken us through the
documents on record i.e. 7/12 extracts of Gut No.125 and 126 dated
18.12.2013, written complaint by the petitioner on 15.02.2021 to
respondent No.2, written complaint to the police station on 14.02.2021,
legal notice dated 23.02.2026 and the photographs. On the basis of these
documents, he submits that cognizance of the acts of the respondents is
required to be taken under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
[3]
932-wp-4640-2026.odt
5. Here, it is to be noted that the 7/12 extracts would at the most
show the area of holding of the petitioner. The photographs cannot
identify the land. Now, the fact which is in dispute would be whether the
garbage is dumped on the portion owned by the petitioner. The petitioner
has not produced a map which would indicate the situation of land Gut
Nos.125 and 126. Therefore, whatever the documents have been
produced on record are not sufficient to support the contention. Further,
the petitioner is also demanding compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- per year
from 2021 till removal of garbage. Certainly, in order to arrive at the said
conclusion, evidence would be required, which cannot be gone into in a
writ petition. Under such circumstance, we are of the opinion that this is
not a fit case where we can exercise our powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The appropriate course for the petitioner would be
to approach the Civil Court.
6. The writ petition therefore stands dismissed.
[ AJIT B. KADETHANKAR ] [ SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI ]
JUDGE JUDGE
scm
[4]
Checking your session…