Bombay High Court
Vikas Education Society, Chopadi And ... vs The Grampanchayat Chopadi Tal Sangola ... on 8 May, 2025
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
Digitally
2025:BHC-AS:21683-DB
signed by
MULEY
MULEY SHUBHAM
SHUBHAM PRAVINRAO
PRAVINRAO Date:
903-WP-383-2025.doc
2025.05.09
19:30:11
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 383 OF 2025
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 7444 OF 2025
1. Vikas Education Society, Chopadi, Taluka
Sangola, Dist. Solapur
2. Shri. Sunil Anandrao Babar ....Petitioners
Vs.
1. The Grampanchayat Chopadi, Tal. Sangola,
District Solapur
2. Gramsevak, (Gramvikas Adhikari), Grampanchayat
Chopadi, Tal. Sangola District Solapur
3. The Block Development Officer, Panchayat Samittee
Sangola Tal. Sangola, Dist. Solapur
4. The District Collector, Solapur
5. The Chief Educative Officer, Zilla Parishad Compound,
Solapur.
6. The District Superintendent of Police Solapur.
7. The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Magalwedha,
Dist. Solapur.
8. The Special D.I.G. Kolhapur Range.
9. The State of Maharashtra through
Department of Home, Mantralaya. ....Respondents
-----------------
Mr. Ambaji R. Rayani for the Petitioner.
Mr. Rupesh Bobade for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5.
Mr. Bhushan Walimbe for the Applicant in IA/7444/2025.
Mr. Kedar B. Dighe, Addl.G.P. a/w P. J. Gavhane, AGP for State.
-----------------
Shubham 1/14
::: Uploaded on - 09/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 10/05/2025 10:21:57 :::
903-WP-383-2025.doc
CORAM : G. S. KULKARNI &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 21 APRIL 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 08 MAY 2025
JUDGMENT (PER ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.):
-
1. This petition as filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for the following substantial reliefs:-
"a) Rule be issued.
b) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue the writ of mandamus, orders,
directions or any other order, directions of appropriate writ in the nature of
mandamus, directing the respondent No.1 and 2 forthwith to restore the
demolished building of the laboratory of the petitioners school and junior college
alongwith all the necessary equipments and facilities."
2. Rule. Returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties, heard finally.
3. We have heard Mr. Ambaji Rayani, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Rupesh Bobade, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 5. Mr. Kedar
Dighe, Adl.G.P. for the state and Mr. Bhushan Walimbe for the Intervenor. With
the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused the record.
4. In the present proceedings the Court is called upon to exercise its writ
jurisdiction on disputed questions/issues of facts qua the petitioners' possession of
the subject structure/building as also the legality of the construction which is
903-WP-383-2025.doc
asserted to be unauthorized under an order passed by the Deputy Superintendent,
Land Records Sangola.
Submissions:-
5. Mr. Rayani has limited submissions. He would first submit that the
petitioner-trust started a school in the year 1972 on a property bearing No.237A,
237B now being Nos.405 and 406, city survey No.35 and 233 respectively
("subject property") are handed over by the respondent No.1 vide a resolution dated
11 July 1973 in favour of the petitioner-trust. However, there is no resolution or
record in these proceedings. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the subject
property since then. It is asserted that the trust imparts education to the poor and
needy students at village Chopadi, Solapur and to adjacent villagers since the year
1972 until date and also runs a junior college. On the other hand, the respondents
would contend that after construction of the new school at survey No.233 that the
petitioner shifted its entire school along with laboratory to such building located at
survey No.233. Since 1996 the old school building at survey No.35 was not
maintained and thereby ran into a state of complete disrepair. Such condition
according to the petitioner would necessitate its demolition on the basis of several
complaints from villagers to Grampanchayat that it posed as a safety hazard for the
villagers in the locality.
6. Mr. Rayani would then contend that it is on one fine morning of 29
July 2024 that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 illegally demolished the said
903-WP-383-2025.doc
building/structure located on land bearing survey No.35 (laboratory building)
which housed the laboratory of the school run by the petitioner-trust, without due
intimation or notice to the petitioner, thereby destroying the valuable equipments
in the said building. The petitioner would contend that the act of demolition of the
petitioner's property was sudden, highhanded and arbitrary inasmuch as the
petitioner was not put to any notice and/or given any opportunity of hearing before
such demolition. Thus, the petitioner is aggrieved by such illegal demolition of its
laboratory building which has caused grave and serious prejudice to the petitioner.
Pursuant to such demolition, the petitioner lodged an FIR bearing No.0587 of
2024 dated 8 August 2024 against the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
7. Mr. Rayani would submit that the demolition by the respondent
Nos.1 and 2 of the laboratory building of the petitioner-trust is shocking and
deplorable. Moreover, it is contrary to all the known principles of natural justice and
also was an act prejudicial not just to the petitioner trust, but also against the
interest of the students for whose benefit such building was used for.
8. Mr. Rayani would thus urge that the illegal demolition of the
laboratory building be set right and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 be forthwith
directed to restore demolished laboratory building of the petitioner-trust along with
all the necessary equipments and facility. This according to Mr. Rayani would be the
demand for justice, for which he has approached this Court.
903-WP-383-2025.doc
9. Mr. Bobade, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 would
strongly oppose the petition. He would refer to the affidavit-in-reply dated 20
March 2025 on behalf of the said respondents filed by Mr. Machhindra V. Misal,
Gramsevak, Solapur. He would at the very outset urge that the petitioner has made
false assertions regarding the ownership and possession of the subject property and
thus has not approached this Court with clean hands.
10. It is the case of the respondent that the subject property was not in use
by the Grampanchayat and for such reason the petitioner-trust requested the
Grampanchayat to allow the use of the said structure for purpose of a laboratory for
the school. It was in the year 1972 that such permission was granted to the
petitioner-trust for using the building as a laboratory. However, there was clearly no
transfer of any ownership rights whatsoever in favour of the petitioner in respect of
the subject property, including the laboratory in the building under survey No.35.
The respondents would contend that since 1996-97 the petitioner had not paid any
Grampanchayat tax pertaining to the said laboratory building.
11. Mr. Bobade would submit that the laboratory building had become
dilapidated as it was constructed in the year 1936 by using stone and mud and since
then due to lack of maintenance, it had become dangerous for use and occupation.
The Grampanchayat received letters with requests from the villagers to demolish
the said structure as it posed a serious threat to the safety and security to the
villagers. Accordingly, the subject of demolition was discussed in the gram sabha of
903-WP-383-2025.doc
the village Chopadi, and it was unanimously decided to demolish the said structure
in view of public safety and security. It was the immediate threat of collapse of the
dilapidated structure that an immediate decision for demolition had to be taken in
the larger interest of the villagers.
12. Mr. Bobade would refer to a resolution dated 31 July 2024, passed by
the gram sabha of the village Chopadi making out a sufficient cause for urgent
demolition of the said dilapidated structure of the laboratory building. The said
resolution reads thus:-
"COPY OF A RESOLUTION PASSED BY THE GRAM SABHA
On the date 30.05.2024, the Gram Sabha of the Grampanchayat of Village
Chopdi, Taluka - Sangli commenced at 10:00 O'clock in the morning, under the
Chairmanship of the Hon'ble Sarpanch, at opposite the office of the
Grampanchayat. The relevant proceeding pertaining to the said Meeting are as
mentioned hereinbelow:
Point No. 6: To consider the extempore items.
1) To demolish the dilapidated and dangerous tin-sheet building located
on the land bearing C. S. No. 35.
Resolution: 166/1. The Tin-sheet building located in the chowk within the
boundary of Village Chopdi Gaothan has become very dilapidated and dangerous.
The said land was owned by the Grampanchayat. However, pursuant to the
decision dated 25.10.1989 of the D. S. L. R., Pune, the name of Government of
Maharashtra came to be entered in the column of owner in place of
Grampanchayat, as owner. The Grampanchayat had constructed the said building
for Sarvodaya Society, from out of the Public contribution. After passage of time,
903-WP-383-2025.doc
the Sarvodaya Yojana came to an end. Thereafter, the said building was allotted to
Balasaheb Desai Vidyalaya for running its laboratory as it did not have a sufficient
space in its building. However, as an adequate premises was thereafter became
available for the Institution, the said building is not in use for last 25 to 26 years.
Thereafter, the said building remained in the possession of the Grampanchayat.
However, as the said building is an old structure, it has become dilapidate and
dangerous. As the said building is located at the centre portion of the Village, a
possibility of loss to life cannot be ruled out and therefore, it is unanimously
resolved to demolish the said tin-sheet building.
Proposed by: Dagadu Govind Babar.
Seconded by: Sachin Mohan Khalage.
The Resolution is passed unanimously."
13. Mr. Bobade would submit that there is nothing on record to show that
the above resolution is disputed and/or challenged by the petitioner. He would urge
that in the given facts and circumstances, there was nothing irregular, arbitrary, let
alone illegal, in demolishing the said tin-sheet structure which posed a serious threat
to the safety and security of the villagers in the said area. For such reason, the
petitioner who has no legal right of ownership or otherwise in the subject property
including the laboratory building has no cause to approach this Court and that too
in a writ petition against such demolition which is the need of the hour, in larger
public interest. He would refer to certain photographs to show the dilapidated
nature of the said structure which warranted immediate demolition.
14. The petitioner has filed an affidavit-in-rejoinder of Mr. Sunil
Anandrao Babar which is on record. Mr. Rayani placing reliance on such rejoinder
903-WP-383-2025.doc
affidavit would reiterate that the demolition of the laboratory building is illegal and
carried out in a manner unknown to law. According to him, it is falsely submitted
by the respondents that there has been non-payment of property taxes since 1997 in
regard to the said building and that the laboratory is in the disputed property which
is used for the students for their practical assignments. As stated in the rejoinder the
laboratory building is in a good condition, very much in the possession of the
petitioner and does not require any demolition, much less there is no emergency
that has arisen to warrant such demolition. Mr. Rayani would strongly dispute that
the said building, structure is in dilapidated state as submitted by the respondents
and would contend to the contrary. He would reiterate that the illegal demolition of
the laboratory building has caused grave prejudice to the school run by the
petitioner-trust and as it is carried out illegally, the laboratory building ought to be
restored by the respondent authorities.
15. We have also heard Mr. Bhushan Walimbe for the intervenor. We
have perused the intervention application dated 15 April 2025 on which the parties
before us are also heard.
16. The intervention application is filed on behalf of the villagers and
residents of the Grampanchayat, village Chopadi, Solapur where the laboratory
building is situate. Mr. Walimbe would first submit that such intervention in the
writ petition is warranted in the light of factually incorrect statements made by the
petitioner and the petition is based on a false foundation. Mr. Walimbe submits that
903-WP-383-2025.doc
the issues raised in the interim application would have a direct bearing on the lis as
it affects the interest of the villagers of the said Grampanchayat whose interest the
applicants represent. Referring to the averments on the intervention application, he
would reiterate the respondents' stand that the laboratory building is in fact on the
land belonging to the State of Maharashtra and the petitioner has no ownership
and/or legal right in respect to the same. According to Mr. Walimbe, the laboratory
building was a dilapidated structure for the last 25-26 years. It is at the behest of the
villagers who made complaints against such structure which posed a safety hazard
for the people of the village where the laboratory building is situated. Relying on
the photographs on record he would submit that it is clear that the laboratory
building is in shambles as the tin roof of the structure is rusted and without proper
fasteners and is in a complete dilapidated state. It is at the behest of the villagers
some of whom, Mr. Walimbe would represent, who made written complaints to the
Grampanchayat to demolish the said laboratory building in the interest of the
villagers and their children.
Analysis:-
17. At the very outset we may note that the prima contentio of the
petitioner is in regard to the illegal demolition of the laboratory building, which
according to the petitioner was at all times in the possession of the petitioner.
However, before delving into the rival contentions we may observe that the
respondents would deny this position on affidavit to the effect that the petitioner as
claimed is in possession of the demolished laboratory building. Since 1997, the
903-WP-383-2025.doc
petitioner ceased to be in possession, occupation and use of the said structure. In
fact, the school building of the petitioner was shifted to a bigger building from land
under survey No.35 to survey No.233 to which the petitioner also moved such
laboratory to the new building/structure. It is since then that the petitioner has not
been using the said building i.e. survey No.35 for the purpose of laboratory of the
school. These facts as placed on record by the respondent in their affidavit-in-reply
are not specifically controverted in the rejoinder of the petitioner. Be that as it may,
these are issues which would necessitate an inquiry into disputed questions of fact
which under settled law is totally outside the ambit and purview of writ jurisdiction.
It is pertinent to note that the case of the respondents on affidavit that the petitioner
has suppressed material facts and not come to the Court with clean hands is not
controverted by the petitioner. The petitioner has not placed on record any
document/material in the nature of any requisite permission from the competent
authority to support its stand in these proceedings.
18. We may advert to an order dated 4 November 1985 (Exhibit-E to the
petition) passed by the officer under the Deputy Superintendent Land Record,
Sangola. Such order was in the nature of inquiry into the trust of the petitioner
situated at village Chopadi, Solapur. The relevant portion of the order reads thus:-
"It cannot be accepted on this basis that the Grampanchayat has given the
ownership rights of the property bearing Chalta Number - 11 of Graph Number 2
and Chalta Number 280 of Graph Number 3, situated at Village Chopdi, Taluka
903-WP-383-2025.doc
- Sangola, to Vikas Education Society, Chopdi, by passing its Resolution and that
the said property is in your possession and under your management.
2) ........
3) ........
4) ........
5) ........
6) ........
7) ........
Therefore, it is proved that the said properties are not of the private ownership
of Vikas Education Society, Chopdi, Grampanchayat Chopdi or of Bhanudas Balu
Babar and Bapu Anna Babar. Hence, it is declared that the said property is a
Gaonthan, exempted from levying tax, Holder - Government of Maharashtra and
that the same is in an unauthorized possession and management of Vikas
Education Society, Chopdi, Taluka - Sangola."
The above order categorically refers to the fact of the petitioner being in
unauthorized possession and management of the subject trust. This order is not
challenged by the petitioner. Such findings would again give rise to disputed
questions of fact, inter alia, relating to the possession of the petitioner being
unauthorized or otherwise which would require evidence to be lead. The pleadings
in the proceedings and the submissions advanced by the parties, brings to the fore
several disputed questions of fact which would have to be tested on the parameters
of evidence. Given such complexion of disputes that cannot be gone into and/or
would not fall within the purview of a writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
903-WP-383-2025.doc
19. We have perused the photographs of the laboratory building as placed
on record by the respondents. A bare perusal of the same with a tin roof would
indicate its dilapidated condition. However, we refrain from delving into details as
such factual disputes for the reasons as noted by us above. In such view of the
matter, we are not in agreement with the submissions of Mr. Rayani who attempts
to espouse a cause and seek relief which do not fall within the confines of writ
jurisdiction.
20. We have considered the intervention application filed on behalf of
some of the villagers. Having heard Mr. Walimbe and perused the application, it
was the complaint of the villagers which insisted on demolition of the laboratory
building as it was causing a safety hazard to them. Mr. Walimbe for the intervenor
would also support the case of the respondent-authorities that the petitioner is in
unauthorized possession of the said laboratory building/structure. In this view of
the matter, as also considering the declaratory nature of reliefs sought by the
petitioner, we are certain that this writ petition cannot be maintainable and/or
entertainable, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
21. Our conclusion is fortified by the decision of the Supreme Court in
Roshina T. Vs. Abdul Azeez K. T.1 on the issue of disputed questions of fact, the
relevant portion reads thus:-
1 (2019) 2 SCC 329
903-WP-383-2025.doc
"14. ...................... The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution shall
not be available except where violation of some statutory duty on the part of
statutory authority is alleged. In such cases, the Court has jurisdiction to issue
appropriate directions to the authority concerned. It is held that the High Court
cannot allow its constitutional jurisdiction to be used for deciding disputes, for
which remedies under the general law, civil or criminal are available. This Court
has held that it is not intended to replace the ordinary remedies by way of a
civil suit or application available to an aggrieved person. The jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constititution being special and extraordinary, it should not
be exercised casually or lightly on mere asking by the litigant. (See Mohan
Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria [Mohan Pandey v. Usha Rani Rajgaria, (1992) 4
SCC 61] and Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. B. D. Agarwal [Dwarka Prasad Agarwal
v. B.D. Agarwal, (2003) 6 SCC 230].)
17. In our opinion, the High Court, therefore, while so directing exceeded its
extraordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Indeed, the High Court in granting such relief, had virtually converted the writ
petition into a civil suit and itself to a civil court. In our view, it was not
permissible."
Adverting to the aforesaid principles of law when a remedy is available to the
petitioner under the general law, the petitioner cannot take recourse to the
extraordinary remedy approaching this Court in the present proceedings under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
22. In light of the forgoing discussion, we pass the following order:-
ORDER
i. The writ petition is rejected. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach
the Civil Court and/or pursue any other remedy as available to him in law. If
903-WP-383-2025.doc
the petitioner desires to pursue such remedy, all rights and contentions of the
parties in such proceedings are kept open.
ii. No costs.
23. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, the captioned interim
application does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [G. S. KULKARNI, J.]
