Bombay High Court
BRIDDHICHAND SATYA NARYAN GUPTAversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SR. INSPECTOR OF POLICE
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
- Bench
- M S KARNIKS M MODAK
Holding
The petition was dismissed because the petitioner had an alternative efficacious remedy available and thus the writ petition could not be entertained.
Summary
The petitioner alleged that his brother had forcibly taken possession of his land and was carrying out illegal construction, seeking a writ to stop the construction and enforce a magistrate's order. The petitioner had already initiated civil proceedings and filed a criminal complaint before a Judicial Magistrate. The court observed that the petitioner had approached the appropriate administrative authority, the Ward Officer, with a complaint regarding the illegal construction, and that the Ward Officer is the competent body to investigate and act. Since an alternative efficacious remedy was available, the court held it could not entertain the writ petition. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition is maintainable when the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy under the administrative process.
- Whether the High Court can intervene in alleged illegal construction without the petitioner first exhausting the remedy before the Ward Officer.
Subjects
- illegal construction
- alternative remedy
- writ petition
- property rights
- administrative jurisdiction
- civil court proceedings
- criminal complaint
Judgment
15-wp 990-26.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 990 OF 2026
Briddhichand Satya Naryan Gupta … Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents
__________________________
Mr. K. R. Tiwari for the Petitioner.
Ms. Vaishali Ugale for the Respondent-BMC.
Mr. Prashant Kamble, AGP for the Respondent-State.
__________________________
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK AND
S. M. MODAK, JJ.
DATED : 4th MARCH, 2026.
P.C. :
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that his brother has made illegal
construction over the subject land after taking its forcible possession from
the petitioner. It is further alleged that the unauthorised construction has
been carried out by his brother i.e. respondent No.8 and others. The relief
sought in this petition is to stop the illegal construction, enforce the
Magistrate’s order and protect the petitioner’s right over the property. The
petitioner has already taken resort to appropriate proceedings before the
Civil Court. Further, the petitioner has approached the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, 17th Court, Borivali by filing the criminal proceedings. In such
Amk 1/2
15-wp 990-26.doc
view of the matter, it is not possible for us to entertain the petition as the
petitioner has availed of alternate efficacious remedy.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No.8 is
carrying out illegal construction. Our attention is invited to the complaint
dated 5th December, 2025 made to the Ward Officer, R/South Ward,
Mahatma Gandhi Road-2, Kandivali (W), Mumbai of the respondent-
Corporation, which is at page 40 of the petition. If it is the grievance of
the petitioner that some illegal construction is being carried out without
any permission, it is for the petitioner to pursue the same before the
competent authority. Since the complaint has been made to the Ward
Officer, the Ward Officer shall obviously look into the complaint and if it is
found that illegal construction is being carried out, obviously action in
accordance with law shall be taken.
4. With these observations, the petition is disposed of.
(S. M. MODAK, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Amk 2/2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.