MANOJKUMAR ANANDRAO SALUNKHE AND ANR.versusTHE CHIEF OFFICER SATARA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ORS.

                                                     57-WP-4771-2026 (c).doc




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                      CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                      WRIT PETITION NO. 4771 OF 2026

Manojkumar Anandrao Salunkhe And Anr.                             ...Petitioners
     Versus
The Chief Officer Satara Municipal Council And Ors.            ...Respondents

                                  …...
Adv. Akshay Kulkarni a/w Adv. Aditya Ghadge and Adv. Avesh Ghadge,
Advocate for the Petitioners.
Adv. D. V. Sutar a/w Adv. Shailesh Chavan, Advocate for the Respondent
No.1.
                                   …..

                                     CORAM : SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.

                                     DATE     : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026.

P.C. :

           Heard.

2.         The petitioners are aggrieved by concurrent finding of facts

recorded by both Courts below in refusing to grant temporary

injunction during the pendency of the suit.

3.         The petitioner has preferred RCS No. 361 of 2026 for declaration

and injunction along with application Exhibit 5 for temporary injunction

restraining the respondent authorities from removing sheds. The claim

is contested by respondent No. 1 Municipal Council. The Trial Court

rejected application Exhibit - 5 on 14.08.2026, which is further

confirmed by Lower Appellate Court vide judgment dated 11.09.2026




     ZIP                                                               1 of 4
                                                     57-WP-4771-2026 (c).doc


passed in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 74 of 2026.

4.         I have heard rival submissions of the parties. The claim of the

petitioners are that they are being inducted lawfully by the respondent

No. 2 Society in open space by virtue of agreement for leave and license

and they are doing business lawfully. It is not an encroachment on the

public road. The petitioners are paying taxes and their possession is

long standing which needs to be protected.

5.         The learned counsel Mr. Sutar appearing for the respondent No. 1

has submitted that Municipal Council is empowered under Section 179

and 188 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and

Industrial Townships Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for

the sake of convenience and brevity) to remove any encroachment or

projection of illegal structure on the public road and the notice dated

28.07.2026 issued was legal and within four corners of law. It is

specifically contended that the intention of the Municipal Council is to

remove encroachment or any projection of the structure on the public

road. It is further informed by learned counsel that except the

petitioners, other plaintiffs have vacated the premises by removing the

temporary sheds.

6.         The controversy pertains to plot No. 95 which is part of survey

No. 383/B of Shahupuri which is measuring 9 R and 75 square meters

which is abutting a road of Rajwada to Divyanagari on its western side.




     ZIP                                                               2 of 4
                                                       57-WP-4771-2026 (c).doc


The notices dated 28.07.2026 issued by the Municipal Council would

indicate that by invoking powers under Section 179 and 188 of the Act,

the encroachments in Shahupuri Chowk and on the road are sought to

be removed. It is not stipulated in the notice that the encroachment on

the open space which is part of plot No. 95 belonging to the respondent

No. 2 Society is sought to be removed.

7.         Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent finding of facts.

The learned counsel for the petitioners is unable to make out a case that

the findings recorded are perverse or patently illegal or no Court would

record such a finding on the basis of material before it. The disputed

questions of facts are required to be gone into during full fledged trial.

8.         It is fairly submitted by learned counsel for the respondent No. 1

that the Municipal Council intends to remove encroachment of any

structure, shed, or its projection on the public road or the premises

mentioned in the notice dated 28.07.2026. The purport is not to take

any action in respect of the construction or shed or shops located in the

open space of plot No. 95 belonging to the respondent No. 2. I find that

the respondent No. 1 is obliged to undertake such exercise by following

due procedure of law.

9.         Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kulkarni, has made a

candid statement that whatever structure or sheds are located in plot

No. 95 and no portion of public road has been occupied by the




     ZIP                                                                 3 of 4
                                                          57-WP-4771-2026 (c).doc


petitioners. If this is the position, then the petitioner would get the

opportunity to defend the action if the respondent Municipal Council

proposes to take action independently in respect of open space.

10.         The Writ Petition is disposed of without causing interference in

the impugned judgment and orders.

11.         It is clarified that the Municipal Council can restrict their drive to

the extent of any encroachment or projection on the public road or on

the public premises as mentioned in the notice dated 28.07.2026.



                                                   [ SHAILESH P. BRAHME, J.]




      ZIP                                                                   4 of 4