[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Rajkumari Bramhamprakash Thakur vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ... on 27 February, 2026
Author: Vibha Kankanwadi
Bench: Vibha Kankanwadi
2026:BHC-AUG:8790-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1697 OF 2026
Satish Madhavrao Pingle
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra through Secretary and others
WRIT PETITION NO. 1706 OF 2026
Gulab Shrimantrao Pawar
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra through Secretary and others
WRIT PETITION NO. 1668 OF 2026
Rajkumari Bramhamprakash Thakur
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra through Secretary and others
WRIT PETITION NO. 1673 OF 2026
Amol Madhukar Khillare
VERSUS
The State of Maharashtra through Secretary and others
Mr. Vishal Bakal, Advocate for petitioners
Ms. N. B. Kamble, Mr. R. S. Wani, AGP for respondent-State in respective
matters
Mr. A. P. Bhandari, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 and 4, Chhatrapati
Sambhaji Nagar Municipal Corporation in all matters
CORAM : Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi &
Hiten S. Venegavkar, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 12th February, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 27th February, 2026
ORDER (PER : Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.):
-
1. These four writ petitions, namely Writ Petition Nos. 1697 of
1697-26, 1706-26, 1668-26 & 1673-26 1 of 9
2026, 1706 of 2026, 1668 of 2026 and 1673 of 2026, were heard
together as they arise out of a common decision dated 06.02.2026
issued by the Municipal Corporation of Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar
under Section 260 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949
(for short, "the MMC Act"), whereby portions of the residential properties
of the respective petitioners are directed to be demolished on the ground
that they affect the Development Plan road.
2. The petitioners are owners and possessors of their respective
plots situated at Satara, Chhatrapati Sambhaji Nagar, having acquired
title by registered sale deeds executed by their predecessors-in-title. It is
their case that construction permissions were granted by the then
competent authority, namely the Gram Panchayat, Satara, during the
years 1991-1992, and that approved plans were sanctioned for
construction of dwelling houses, including first-floor construction. The
petitioners rely upon the said permissions as well as upon an order dated
09.02.2002 passed by the Collector, Aurangabad, regularizing the land
for non-agricultural use. According to the petitioners, the constructions
were raised strictly in accordance with the permissions granted and no
conditions were violated.
3. It is not in dispute that in the year 2015-2016, the area of
Satara and Devlai Gram Panchayat was merged into the limits of the
1697-26, 1706-26, 1668-26 & 1673-26 2 of 9
then Aurangabad Municipal Corporation, now renamed as Chhatrapati
Sambhaji Nagar Municipal Corporation. The petitioners contend that by
virtue of Section 493 read with Appendix VI of the MMC Act, permissions
granted by the erstwhile authority continue to remain valid and
operative, and that the Corporation cannot retrospectively term such
constructions as unauthorized.
4. The controversy arises in the context of implementation of
the Development Plan 2022-2040, which came into force on 15.04.2025.
Under the said Development Plan, the width of the road abutting the
petitioners' properties is proposed to be increased to 15 meters. A notice
dated 28.11.2025 was issued under Section 260 of the MMC Act alleging
that portions of the petitioners' constructions were unauthorized and
affected the proposed road widening. The petitioners submitted replies
along with copies of the construction permissions and other supporting
documents. Thereafter, the impugned notices dated 06.02.2026 were
issued, directing demolition of the structures within eight days, failing
which the Corporation would carry out demolition.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that
the action of the Corporation is arbitrary and unsustainable. It was
contended that the constructions were raised pursuant to valid
permissions granted by the Gram Panchayat at a time when the
1697-26, 1706-26, 1668-26 & 1673-26 3 of 9
Municipal Corporation was not in existence in respect of the said area. It
was further argued that the order passed by the Collector regularizing
the land for non-agricultural use lends support to the legality of the
development. According to the petitioners, the Corporation has failed to
consider the documents annexed to the reply and has summarily
concluded that the constructions are unauthorized. It was also urged that
if the land is required for road widening, the Corporation must resort to
acquisition proceedings in accordance with law and compensate the
petitioners. Reliance was placed upon Article 300A of the Constitution of
India to contend that no person can be deprived of property save by
authority of law.
6. Per contra, the learned advocate appearing for the Municipal
Corporation submitted that the impugned notices have been issued after
granting an opportunity of hearing and considering the replies. It was
contended that the petitioners have not obtained permission from the
competent Planning Authority under the relevant planning legislation and
that permissions granted by the Gram Panchayat are not sufficient once
the area forms part of a Municipal Corporation. It was further submitted
that the order of the Collector pertains only to conversion of agricultural
land to non-agricultural use and does not amount to regularization of
construction. On these grounds, it was urged that the constructions are
1697-26, 1706-26, 1668-26 & 1673-26 4 of 9
unauthorized and that the notices issued under Section 260 are legal and
valid.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length
and perused the record. It is an admitted position that the petitioners'
properties are partly affected by the Development Plan road. It is equally
undisputed that the petitioners do not oppose the road widening as such.
The core issue that arises for consideration is whether the notices issued
under Section 260 of the MMC Act satisfy the statutory requirements and
whether they disclose adequate reasons and particulars to justify the
drastic action of demolition.
8. Section 260 of the MMC Act empowers the Commissioner to
require removal or alteration of unauthorized construction. The power is
drastic in nature, as it entails demolition of property. It is well settled
that such power must be exercised strictly in accordance with the statute
and consistent with the principles of natural justice. The notice must
clearly specify the nature of the alleged unauthorized construction, the
extent of deviation, the legal provisions violated, and must provide
sufficient particulars to enable the person concerned to effectively
respond.
9. In the present case, upon perusal of the notice dated
1697-26, 1706-26, 1668-26 & 1673-26 5 of 9
06.02.2026, we find that it is conspicuously silent as to the precise
nature and description of the construction alleged to be unauthorized.
The notice does not specify the exact area falling within the Development
Plan road, except by broadly referring to "15 meters and 30 meters" of
road width. It does not quantify the portion of construction to be
removed nor does it furnish measurements with clarity. More
importantly, the notice does not deal with the specific contention of the
petitioners that the constructions were raised pursuant to permissions
granted by the Gram Panchayat prior to the establishment of the
Corporation. None of the documents annexed to the reply are discussed
or rejected by a reasoned analysis.
10. The requirement of a reasoned order is no longer res integra.
In Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. v. Union of India,
(1976) 2 SCC 981, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :
6. Before we part with this appeal, we must express
our regret at the manner in which the Assistant
Collector, the Collector and the Government of India
disposed of the proceedings before them. It is
incontrovertible that the proceedings before the
Assistant Collector arising from the notices demanding
differential duty were quasi-judicial proceedings and so
also were the proceedings in revision before the
Collector and the Government of India. Indeed, this
was not disputed by the learned Counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents. It is now settled law that
where an authority makes an order in exercise of a
quasi-judicial function, it must record its reasons in
support of the order it makes. Every quasi-judicial
1697-26, 1706-26, 1668-26 & 1673-26 6 of 9
order must be supported by reasons. That has been
laid down by a long line of decisions of this Court
ending with N. M. Desai v. Testeels Ltd.
Thus, Hon'ble Supreme Court emphasized that every quasi-
judicial order must be supported by reasons. In Kranti Associates Pvt.
Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court reiterated that recording of reasons is an indispensable facet of
natural justice and promotes transparency and fairness in decision-
making. In the context of municipal demolition proceedings, this Court
has consistently held that notices under Section 260 must disclose
specific particulars of the alleged unauthorized construction so as to
enable effective defence.
11. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai v. Sunbeam High Tech Developers
Pvt. Ltd., (2019) 20 SCC 781, observed that demolition powers must be
exercised strictly in conformity with statutory provisions and with due
regard to procedural safeguards. The Bombay High Court has similarly
held in several decisions that a bald notice lacking particulars and
reasons is liable to be set aside as being violative of principles of natural
justice.
12. In the present matter, we consciously refrain from
1697-26, 1706-26, 1668-26 & 1673-26 7 of 9
adjudicating upon the ultimate validity of the permissions obtained by
the petitioners or upon the question whether acquisition proceedings are
necessary. Those issues may require detailed examination by the
competent authority in accordance with law. Our interference at this
stage is confined to the legality and sufficiency of the impugned notices.
13. We are of the considered view that the impugned notices
dated 06.02.2026 suffer from non-application of mind. They fail to
specify the nature, description and measurements of the alleged
unauthorized construction. They do not contain any reasoning as to why
the permissions granted by the erstwhile Gram Panchayat are not valid
or sufficient. They do not analyze or reject the documents produced by
the petitioners by way of a reasoned order. Such notices, which entail
serious civil consequences, cannot be sustained in law.
14. In exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, we therefore, set aside the impugned notices dated
06.02.2026 issued under Section 260 of the MMC Act. The matter is
remitted to the respondent authorities for reconsideration. The
respondents shall reconsider the replies submitted by the petitioners
along with all annexed documents and permissions, grant an opportunity
of personal hearing, and thereafter pass a detailed, reasoned order
dealing with each of the contentions raised. If, upon such consideration,
1697-26, 1706-26, 1668-26 & 1673-26 8 of 9
the respondents find that any portion of the construction is unauthorized,
they shall issue an appropriate notice under Section 260 clearly
specifying the nature, description and measurements of the alleged
unauthorized construction and the statutory basis for such conclusion.
15. All four writ petitions are accordingly disposed of in the above
terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
(Hiten S. Venegavkar, J.) (Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.)
B. S. Joshi
1697-26, 1706-26, 1668-26 & 1673-26 9 of 9
