[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Wadwa Construction And Insfrasture ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr Revenue And ... on 9 March, 2026
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
2026:BHC-AS:11484
2. WPST-3199-26 & 3198-26.odt
Amberkar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 3198 OF 2026
WITH
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO. 3199 OF 2026
M/s. Wadhwa Construction & Infrastructure Pvt
Ltd .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Vishal Kanade a/w Mr. Raghav Taneja & Mr. Archit Rao i/by
M/s. Vidhi Partners, Advocates for Petitioner in WP(St) No.
3198/2026
Mr. Saket Mone a/w Mr. Raghav Taneja & Mr. Archit Rao i/by M/s.
Vidhi Partners, Advocates for Petitioner in WP(St) No. 3199/2026
Mr. V.S. Kapse, Advocate for Respondent No. 5
Ms. P.J. Gavhane, AGP for State
Mr. Gulab Ramdas Waghmare, Sarpanch of Respondent No. 5
Mr. Ashok S. Gaikar, Upsarpanch of Respondent No. 5
Mr. Sunil N. Patil, Member of Respondent No. 5
Ms. Supriya D. Gaikar, Member of Respondent No. 5
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : MARCH 09, 2026
P. C.:
1. Heard Mr. Kanade, learned Advocate for Petitioner in WP(St)
No. 3198/2026; Mr. Mone, learned Advocate for Petitioner in WP(St)
3199/2026; Mr. Kapse, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 5 and
Ms. Gavhane, learned AGP for State.
2. Today Mr. Kapse, learned Advocate enters appearance on behalf
of Respondent No. 5. Ms. Gavhane, learned AGP enters appearance for
1 of 4
2. WPST-3199-26 & 3198-26.odt
State. At the outset, they have informed the Court that the entire
width of the road which was dug up has been restored immediately
rather partially restored as informed by Mr. Kanade also.
3. Admittedly Revision Application Nos. 555/2025 and 556/2025
are pending before the State. Order dated 09.01.2026 which is the
subject matter of challenge in the Petitions passed by Tahsildar is
permitted to be challenged before the State in accordance with law
and Mr. Kanade informs Court that the same shall be challenged
forthwith by the Petitioner. The said challenge will be heard by the
State in view of pendency of the Revision proceedings before the State.
If the said challenge is maintained, copy of the said Appeal / Revision
proceedings shall be served on Respondent No. 5 also. Respondent
No. 5 is the Group Gram Panchayat Bhingar, Taluka Panvel, Dist.
Raigad. Sarpanch, Upsarpanch and two members of the said Group
Grampanchayat are present before me and they have given
instructions to Mr. Kapse. Mr. Kapse informs that the contents of
Government Resolution dated 12.07.2011 and Government
Notification dated 09.05.2017 (appended at page Nos. 153 & 471 of
Petition) are required to be taken cognizance of before allowing rather
before transferring the xk;jku / xqjpj.k land which is the subject matter
of dispute to the Petitioner for the purpose of access to the Integrated
Township Project (ITP). He would submit that non-consideration of
2 of 4
2. WPST-3199-26 & 3198-26.odt
Government Resolution and amended Notification has led to the
passing of the impugned order and therefore the same is bad in law.
Be that as it may, Petitioner is aggrieved but since the Revision
proceedings as delineated herein above are pending with the State, no
purpose will be served by giving any imprimatur on merits on disputed
questions of facts between the parties.
4. Mr. Kapse has asserted certain facts which are strongly refuted
by Mr. Kanade by stating that cognizance of the aforesaid Government
Resolution / amended Notification has already been taken. Both the
parties shall be entitled to point out the same in the pending Revision
proceedings before the State and any other further proceedings that
shall be filed by Petitioner to challenge the impugned order dated
09.01.2026. All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open in
accordance with law.
5. That apart as alluded to herein above, only part of the road has
been made functional. Petitioner will be at liberty to apply to the
State for making the balance - other part of the road usable for the
purpose of access by making appropriate Application before the State
and if such an Application is filed, copy of the same shall be given to
the private Respondent and the State shall take immediate decision
thereon in order to ensure that no any inconvenience is caused to the
parties until the Revision proceedings are decided. Needless to state
3 of 4
2. WPST-3199-26 & 3198-26.odt
that all contentions of both the parties are expressly kept open and
they shall be subject to the final outcome of the Revision proceedings
and the rights of the parties shall be governed insofar as the dispute in
respect of xk;jku / xqjpj.k land is concerned.
6. It is made clear that this Court has not given any imprimatur on
the facts of the matter as also on merits and the State shall decide the
Revision proceedings after hearing both sides judiciously and pass
appropriate reasoned speaking order. Needless to state that the right
of access which has been made open and functional in the meantime
shall not be disturbed by the private Respondents.
7. Considering the exigency expressed in the matter by both sides,
State is requested by this Court to determine the Revision proceedings
and any other proceeding that may be filed to challenge the impugned
order dated 09.01.2026 passed by Tahsildar preferably within a period
of 12 weeks from today.
8. Copy of this order shall be conveyed to the concerned
Department. Copy of this order shall be placed before the concerned
State Authority by the learned AGP.
9. All parties to act on a server copy of this order downloaded from
High Court website.
10. With the above directions, both Writ Petitions are disposed.
Amberkar
[ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
RAVINDRA MOHAN
MOHAN AMBERKAR
AMBERKAR Date:
2026.03.09
17:52:52 +0530 4 of 4
