Saturday, 02, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Experio Ventures Thru Partner vs The State Of Maharashtra Thru ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2181 Bom

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 2181 Bom
Judgement Date : 26 February, 2026

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Experio Ventures Thru Partner vs The State Of Maharashtra Thru ... on 26 February, 2026

Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
                                                                                         P1.WPST.5583.2026.doc

HARSHADA H. SAWANT
      (P.A.)
                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION


                                     WRIT PETITION (ST.) NO.5583 OF 2026

              Experio Ventures                                                        .. Petitioner
                         Versus
              The State of Maharashtra and Ors.                                       .. Respondents
                                         ....................

               Mr. Atul Damale, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Suresh Sabrad for
                Petitioner.
               Ms. P. G. Gavhane, AGP for Respondents.
                                                          ...................

                                                         CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
                                                         DATE          : FEBRUARY 26, 2026
              P.C.:

1. Not on Board. Mentioned by way of filing praecipe dated

26.02.2026. Perused the praecipe.

2. Heard Mr. Damale, learned Senior Advocate for Petitioner

and Ms. Gavhane, learned Advocate for Respondents.

3. Urgent intervention of the Court is sought. Extreme action

of sealing the premises of Petitioner which are under construction

rather almost ready has been undertaken by State's statutory Officer

namely Tahsildar invoking action under Section 48(7) of the

Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966. Hearing took place before

Tahsildar and was culminated on 10.01.2025. The impugned order

passed by Tahsildar is appended at Exhibit-L, page No.98. It is dated

28.01.2025 but was served on Petitioner on 23.02.2026 which is

1 of 4

P1.WPST.5583.2026.doc

justified on the basis of the stamp of the Tahsildar on which date the

impugned order was readied.

4. Mr. Damle, learned Senior Advocate informs the Court that

on that very date, Petitioner's premises came to be sealed, thereby

stalling all further future development of the subject building cutting of

access to the building.

5. The response of the Petitioner to the statutory notice is that

the excavated mineral soil was used by the Petitioner in the subject

development itself. The facts which emanate from record are that for

the 700 brass of mineral soil transported appropriate permissions were

obtained by Petitioner from the Competent Authority whereas the

balance mineral soil excavated was used in the same subject

construction/project.

6. The dichotomy is with respect to total amount of excavation

done as allgeed by the Statutory Authority. It is contended that

excavation of mineral soil was to the effect of 2716.86 brass, however

it is contention of Petitioner that even as per the inspection report

prepared by Talathi in the enquiry conducted excavation has been

shown to be of approximately 1850 brass.

7. Mr. Damle would submit that when permission was sought

from the Competent Authority in respect of 700 brass of mineral soil it

was contended by Petitioner that total excavation was of 1850 brass

2 of 4

P1.WPST.5583.2026.doc

and not the exaggerated figure as contemplated by the Authority.

8. In any event considering the aforesaid facts, unless and until

it is pointed out through cogent evidence that Petitioner has not only

excavated excess mineral soil but has also transported the same away

from the subject site, the impugned action taken by Authority is

extremely high handed and arbitrary. It deserves to be interfered

with..

9. In that view of the matter, issue notice to Respondents.

10. Humdast permitted. In addition to Court's notice, Petitioner

is directed to serve the Respondent a copy of this order and copy of

Writ Petition and inform about the next date of hearing by any

permissible mode of service and file appropriate affidavit of service

with tangible proof thereof.

11. Respondents shall enter appearance considering this order

and apprise the Court about objections, if any to the case of the

Petitioner.

12. This Court shall pass appropriate orders in respect of

removing seal on the property of the Petitioner.

13. Ms. Gavhane, learned AGP enters appearance on behalf of

Respondent - State. She is directed to take appropriate instructions

from the Tahsildar and inform the Court accordingly.

3 of 4

P1.WPST.5583.2026.doc

14. Stand over to 27th February 2026. To be placed under the

caption 'First on Board'.

15. Praecipe is disposed.

H. H. SAWANT                                                        [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]




               HARSHADA    by HARSHADA

               HANUMANT    SAWANT
               SAWANT      Date: 2026.02.26
                           15:00:26 +0530




                                                                                                    4 of 4



 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter