IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.7981 OF 2026

The Deccan Co-operative Housing

Society Limited,

1079 B, Union Park,

Khar (West), Mumbai – 400 052..... Petitioner

Vs.

1. The State of Maharashtra,

through its Principal Secretary,

Revenue Department, Mantralaya,

Mumbai – 400 032

2. The Collector,

Mumbai Suburban,

Administrative Building, 10

th

Floor,

Government Colony, Bandra (East),

Mumbai – 400 051 .... Respondents

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4651 OF 2026

IN

WRIT PETITION NO.7981 OF 2026

Jasani Realty Private Limited

A Company registered under the

Companies Act, 1956

Having its registered address at

23, Morvi House, 28/30, Goa Street,

Ballard Estate, Mumbai – 400 038 … Applicant

In the matter between :

1/24

901 WP 7981.26+IA.doc Dusane

The Deccan Co-operative Housing

Society Limited,

1079 B, Union Park,

Khar (West), Mumbai – 400 052..... Petitioner

Vs.

1. The State of Maharashtra,

through its Principal Secretary,

Revenue Department, Mantralaya,

Mumbai – 400 032

2. The Collector,

Mumbai Suburban,

Administrative Building, 10

th

Floor,

Government Colony, Bandra (East),

Mumbai – 400 051 .... Respondents

----

Mr. Pravin Kumar Samdani, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Bhushan

Deshmukh, Ms. Neha Mehta, Mr. Aditya Miskita, Mr. Umair

Merchant, Ms. Aayushi Gohil, Ms. Rima Ajmerwalla and Daryl

Alemao i/b M.T. Miskita & Co. for Petitioner in WP.

Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar a/w Mr. Amogh Singh, Mr. Devansh Shah,

Mr. Santosh Pathak, Mr. Nimish Lotlikar, Ms. Archana Karmakar,

Ms. Khushi Jain i/b Law Origin for Applicant in IA No. 4651 of

2026.

Mr. Yuvraj D. Patil, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 – State.

CORAM : ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J.

RESERVED ON : 28

th

August 2026

PRONOUNCED ON : 10

th

September 2026

2/24

901 WP 7981.26+IA.doc Dusane

JUDGMENT :

1. The Interim Application is allowed. Rule. Rule is made returnable

forthwith. Heard finally.

2. By the present Writ Petition, the Petitioner challenges the legality,

validity and propriety of the Impugned Order dated 17

th

March 2026, passed

by Respondent No. 2 – Resident Deputy Collector, Mumbai Suburban

District (“the Collector”), directing removal of gates installed on the

Government land, used as an access by the Petitioner.

3. The Petitioner-Society also challenges the action taken pursuant to the

impugned order dated 17

th

March 2026 passed by Respondent No. 2 –

Collector. Pursuant thereto, Respondent No. 2- Collector and its officers, on

23

rd

March 2026, 27

th

March 2026 and 1

st

April 2026, visited the property

which is the subject matter of the present Writ Petition and attempted to

demolish the existing gate, which has been in the exclusive and

uninterrupted possession and use of the Petitioner-Society for over 45 years.

4. The case of the Petitioner in the Writ Petition is briefly set out

hereunder:-

By Order dated 23rd September 1959, land admeasuring 17,780 per

sq. mtrs. bearing Plot nos. 15 to 22 and 23.37, out of survey nos. 323 and

289/B, situated at Danda, Bombay Suburban District (“the Larger Land”)

3/24

901 WP 7981.26+IA.doc Dusane

was granted on permanent basis by the Collector, Mumbai in favour of

Petitioner, subject to certain terms and conditions stipulated therein.

Accordingly, the land vested in the Petitioner. It is further stated that the

portion of land, approximately admeasuring 7,075.07 sq. mtrs., was reserved

as open space under the sanctioned Development Plan for Greater Mumbai.

The BMC, through its officer, i.e. the Deputy City Engineer, Development

Plan, addressed a letter dated 6th March 1978 to the Petitioner’s Architect

with respect to the proposed temporary access road through the property

reserved as open space. As per the said letter, the Petitioner was permitted to

access a 30-feet-wide strip of the D.P. road through the Government

property.

5. The Petitioner transferred the ownership/title of the open space/

garden to BMC sometime in the year 1978. The construction of 44-feet-wide

D.P. road, as contemplated in the letter dated 13th March 1978 addressed by

the BMC, was also completed, and the name of the BMC was mutated in the

Property Card and updated in the Land Records sometime in or about the

year 1985.

6. However, from 1985 onwards, the Petitioner has remained in physical

possession of the open space and garden. The Petitioner states that it is in

adverse possession of the said property that they have been using it for a

4/24

901 WP 7981.26+IA.doc Dusane

period of 41 years. It is further stated that the Petitioner has been in physical

control of the property since 1985 including the garden / open space. It is

stated that the garden / open space alongwith the gate thereon has been

exclusive and uninterrupted possession of the Petitioner from 1960 until

1985 when the same was handed over to BMC and the possession was taken

over by the Petitioner in 1985 itself. The Petitioner has incurred various

expenses towards the maintenance of the garden.

7. On 6

th

May 2025, the name of the BMC was updated in the Property

Card/Land Records. Thereafter, the BMC, through its concerned officer,

issued a notice to the Petitioner stating that the garden property was owned

by the BMC, as reflected in the Property Card, and that the Petitioner was

using the said property unauthorisedly. Accordingly, the Petitioner was

called upon to hand over physical possession of the property to the BMC,

remove the locked gate and the security personnel deployed by the

Petitioner, and cease all exclusive activities and/or development being

carried out on the said property.

8. On 6

th

May 2025, the Petitioner responded to the notice issued by the

concerned BMC authority. Thereafter, the Petitioner was constrained to

institute Suit No. 287 of 2025, inter alia, seeking a declaration in respect of

its rights, title and interest in the said property, i.e. the land reserved for

5/24

901 WP 7981.26+IA.doc Dusane

garden and also the gate, as well as a decree of permanent injunction

restraining the BMC from taking any precipitative or coercive action

pursuant to the notices dated 6th May 2025 and 23rd May 2025, and from

dispossessing the Petitioner from the said property without following due

process of law.

9. In the Civil Suit, this Court granted ad-interim reliefs restraining the

BMC from taking any coercive action. The order dated 11

th

June 2025

passed by this court (Coram : R.I. Chagla, J.) is quoted below :

“

1. The Defendant – Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporaton shall file

their Affidavit in Reply to the Interim Applicatoin within a period of two

weeks from today i.e. on or before 25

th

June 2025.

2. The Plaintiff is at liberty to file Affidavit in Rejoinder thereto

within a period of one week therafter.

3. Considering that the Plaintiff has been in possession of the Suit

property for several years, till the next date, the Defendants shall not act

upon the impugned notices dated 6

th

May 2025 and 23

rd

May 2025.

4. Place the Interim Application for further consideration on 4

th

July

2025”.

10. It is stated that the interim protection granted by this Court extends to

the garden area as well as the access area. It is further stated that, during the

pendency of the Suit, Jasani Realty Private Limited, a Company, undertaking

a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme adjacent to the Petitioner’s property, sought to

intervene in the Suit by filing Interim Application (L) No. 30680 of 2025,

6/24

901 WP 7981.26+IA.doc Dusane

inter alia, seeking its impleadment in the Suit. The said Intervention

Application was subsequently withdrawn.

11. It is stated that the said Interim Application was filed by Jasani Realty

Pvt. Limited for two purposes: (i) Jasani sought to ensure that the suit

property, i.e. the garden, was not used exclusively by the Petitioner and was,

presumably, made available for use by the proposed flat purchasers in its

Scheme on the adjoining land; and (ii) Jasani sought to secure better access

to its Scheme on the adjoining property by opening the gate of a pathway

leading to the garden.

12. The Petitioner opposed the said Interim Application, which was

thereafter withdrawn by Jasani pursuant to an Order dated 18

th

February

2026.

13. Against this background, on 23

rd

March 2026, the

officers/representatives of Respondent No. 2 – Collector, visited the

Petitioner’s property without any prior notice and proceeded to attempt the

demolition of an existing gate situated in the garden area of the property, at

the entrance to a small pathway leading to the garden. The said pathway and

the gate have been in the Petitioner’s lawful, settled and uninterrupted

possession and use for over 45 years.

7/24

901 WP 7981.26+IA.doc Dusane

14. Upon being questioned, the officials present at the site stated that the

aforesaid action was purportedly being undertaken pursuant to certain

directions and/or an order issued by Respondent No. 2 – Collector. It was

only in the course of the said attempted demolition that the Petitioner

became aware of the purported directions and/or order issued by Respondent

No. 2 – Collector.

15. No show-cause notice was issued to the Petitioner, nor was any

opportunity afforded to the Petitioner to furnish an explanation prior to the

issuance of the purported directions/order or the attempted demolition

carried out on 23rd March 2026. The said action, having been undertaken

without any authority of law and without reference to or compliance with

any statutory provision, is ex facie arbitrary, illegal and in flagrant violation

of the principles of natural justice.

16. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Petitioner has been constrained to

approach this Hon’ble Court by invoking its jurisdiction under Articles 226

and 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the illegal and arbitrary

actions of Respondent No. 2 – Collector, including the attempted demolition

of the gate, as well as the impugned order/directions pursuant to which such

action was purportedly undertaken. The impugned action has been taken

without issuance of any notice to the Petitioner, without conducting any

8/24

901 WP 7981.26+IA.doc Dusane

enquiry, and without calling for, receiving or considering any explanation

from the Petitioner.

17. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that (i) the garden, along

with the gate, is the subject matter of Civil Suit No. 287 of 2025; (ii) the

injunction order passed by this Court operates against the Respondent No.2-

Collector from taking any coercive steps, although the Collector is not a

party to the Civil Suit, as the injunction operates against the Municipal

Corporation; (iii) the subject property i.e. the installed gates, forms part of

the subject matter of the civil suit; and (iv) Respondent No. 2- Collector

ought not to have passed any order for removal of the gates.

18. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that no notice of hearing

was given to the Petitioner and the Petitioner has been in exclusive

occupation of the strip of land/excess strip for a long period of time, i.e.,

about 45 years. As such, without issuing notice to the Petitioner, no action

ought to have been taken by the Collector for removal of the gates. Learned

counsel for the Petitioner submits that the strip, over which access is

claimed, forms part of a larger property, which is owned by the Petitioner by

virtue of the original grant of the year 1953. The learned counsel for the

Petitioner submits that Respondent No. 2- Collector has acted high-handedly

at the instance of the Intervenor and that the Intervenor, having failed to

9/24

901 WP 7981.26+IA.doc Dusane

intervene in the civil suit, has thereafter approached the Collector, who

proceeded to take action bypassing the proceedings in the said Civil Suit.

The Intervenor did not proceed to contest the proceedings before the Civil

Court but withdrew the application and applied to the State.

19. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has taken me through the maps to

substantiate the case of the Petitioner. It is submitted that the strip of land

being used as an access belongs to the Petitioner-Society and that

Respondent No.2 -Collector has no right or authority over the said strip.

20. Learned counsel further submits that the portion of the land claimed

by the Intervenor and State-Respondent No.2 is not a public street.

Consequently, the Municipal Corporation could not have taken any action in

respect of the said property. He further submits that, even assuming that the

property is Government land and that the same is held against the Petitioner,

it cannot be taken over by the authorities without issuance of due notice to

the Petitioner. The Petitioner has been in settled possession of the property

for over 45 years. Therefore, even if it is held that the street access is

situated on Government land, the authorities cannot dispossess the Petitioner

or take over the land without following due process of law and providing

him an opportunity of being heard. In that regard, he relies upon the

judgment delivered by this Court (Coram : Shailesh P. Bramhe, J),

10/24

901 WP 7981.26+IA.doc Dusane

Aurangabad Bench, in the case of Shakuntalabai w/o Shrinivas Dhoot &

Ors. V. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

1

.

21. An Intervention Application has been filed by the Intervenor, who has

submitted that the Civil Suit does not pertain to the strip of land on which

the Collector has taken action. It is specifically pointed out that, having

regard to the prayers in the Civil Suit, the gate, the removal of which has

been directed does not form part of the subject matter of the Civil Suit.

22. Mr. Khandeparkar, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor,

submitted that the Division Bench of this Court, in Writ Petition No. 2701 of

2019, had specifically appointed a Committee to inquire into the

development of the slum adjoining the petitioner’s plot. Various directions

were issued by this Court to ensure that access to the slum area was kept

open, particularly in view of the highly congested nature of the area. The

said order was also challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court; however,

the Special Leave Petition (SLP) came to be dismissed.

23. Learned counsel further submitted that the slum area is densely

populated and has no alternative access. In such circumstances, the existing

public access cannot be permitted to be converted into a private access, as

doing so would adversely affect the residents of the slum and impede their

access to the area.

1 Second Appeal Nos. 118, 119, 120 and 127 of 1999 dt. 8

th

August 2025

11/24

901 WP 7981.26+IA.doc Dusane

24. The Civil Suit pertains to a garden shown in the D.P. Plan, which is

earmarked for a public purpose. According to the Intervenor, the Petitioner is

a land grabber attempting to take over the said garden, and the same is the

subject matter of the Civil Suit.

25. As regards the strip of land on which the Petitioner has erected the

gate, it is submitted that the said strip constitutes Government land being

used as an access. Such access is available to all concerned, and the

Petitioner cannot claim any exclusive right over the same or convert a public

access into an exclusive passage by erecting a gate.

26. The Collector, by merely directing the removal of the gates, has

ensured that the access remains available to all concerned, including the

Petitioner. The Petitioner has no absolute right over the said access. The use

of the access was only temporarily permitted to the Petitioner over

Government land, particularly since the 44 D.P. Road situated on the other

side of the Petitioner's plot had not yet been developed.

27. The access in question is admittedly situated on Government land and

is available to the public at large. The terms of the original letter granting

access itself indicate that, once the 44 D.P. Road was developed and made

available, the Petitioner was expected to discontinue the use of the access

12/24

901 WP 7981.26+IA.doc Dusane

over the strip of land now claimed by the Petitioner. It is submitted that the

44 D.P. Road is admittedly now openly available, and consequently, the

Petitioner has no continuing right to exclusively use the said Government

land as an access.

28. The learned AGP appearing for Respondent No. 2 – Collector submits

that the strip of land in question is Government land and that access over the

said land was permitted to the Petitioner by the Municipal Corporation, as

the Petitioner’s plot was inaccessible at the relevant time and the D.P. Road

connecting the said plot was then under construction.

29. Admittedly, the D.P. Road is now constructed and operational. In any

event, since the strip of land is Government property, over which access is

merely permitted to the Petitioner as well as to others, the Petitioner cannot

erect a gate so as to convert access over Government land into an exclusive

right of possession.

30. Therefore, the action of the Government in directing removal of the

gates and maintaining the access open to all cannot be faulted. The Petitioner

is not in possession of the said property and is merely permitted to use the

strip of land as an access. By erecting up a gate, the Petitioner is, in effect,

attempting to convert public access into private access and thereby encroach

upon and appropriate Government property.

13/24

901 WP 7981.26+IA.doc Dusane

31. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the following

questions arise for my consideration :

(i) Whether the access strip forms part of the subject matter of

Civil Suit No. 287 of 2025 and, consequently, whether the

injunction order passed therein applies to the said access strip,

which has been directed to be kept/opened as open land by

removing the gates installed therein?

(ii) Whether the strip of land on which the gate is installed is

allotted to the Petitioner and form the part of allotment granted in

the year 1959 ? and Whether the Collector was required to issue

a separate notice to the Petitioner before directing the removal of

the gate erected on the access strip?

(iii) Whether the Collector had the jurisdiction and authority to

direct removal of the gate, and whether such direction is beyond

his statutory powers and in violation of the provisions of Section

53 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code?

32. In response to the application for Intervention Application filed by the

Intervenor in the Suit No. 287 of 2025, the Petitioner herein specifically

responded to the said application. The relevant statements from the

Petitioner’s Affidavit-in-Reply are set out below:

“3.7. The guarded pleadings in the captioned IA does not even

allege that the Road of 9.15 meters which leads to the suit

property which is a garden in possession of and maintained by

the Plaintiff is the only access available to the property which

the Applicant claims to be developing. This is a reason enough

to conclude that Applicant has absolutely nothing to do with

14/24

901 WP 7981.26+IA.doc Dusane

the lis involved in the present Suit.

3.8. Additionally, the road described as 9.15 meter wide D.P.

Road (albeit incorrectly) by the Applicant is admittedly not

part of the Suit Property. This is one more reason for

warranting dismissal of the captioned IA.

4. ………... IA is nothing but an attempt to seek one more

and better access through 9.15 meter wide existing road which

leads to the Suit Property i.e. garden, which is in possession of

and is maintained by the Plaintiff for last several years as

stated in the Plaint.

. ……..

5.2. …. Firstly, the land beneath 9.15 meter road belongs and

is owned by the Plaintiff society. There is an existing road

which the Plaintiff has constructed at its own cost which leads

to the garden which is subject matter of the present Suit. The

land beneath this 9.15 meter wide existing road which is

owned and is in possession of the Plaintiff since last several

years. This private road was constructed pursuant to obtaining

the permissions of statutory authorities. …………………..

For the sake of clarity, the 9.15 meter wide road is an existing

road and is shown as such in the sanctioned D.P. 2034 and the

land beneath belongs to the Plaintiff. Two assertions in the

paragraph under reference in the IA is therefore incorrect and

therefore denied i.e. 9.15 meter wide road is a D.P. Road and

that it belongs to the Government. I deny that the entries in the

Property Card annexed by the Applicant prove or demonstrate

that the ….

5.13. …….. Fourthly, what the Plaintiff describes as 9.15 meter

wide D.P Road is not the suit property in respect of which the

declaration of ownership by adverse possession is sought.”

15/24

901 WP 7981.26+IA.doc Dusane

33. The relevant prayer in the Civil Suit No. 287 of 2025 filed before this

Court are as under :

“(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that the

Plaintiff has perfected its title and has become the owner of the

Suit Property (described in Ex. D) by way of adverse possession,

and any right, title or interest of Defendant No.1 in the Suit

Property (described in Ex. D) has stood extinguished in view of

Section 27 of the Limitation Act, 1963.”

34. Considering the prayers made in the Civil Suit and the statements of

the Petitioner opposing the Intervention Application, in the Civil Suit, it is

clear that the gate and the strip of land in respect of which the Government

has passed the impugned order do not form part of Civil Suit No. 287 of

2025 and thus, the interim order passed in the said Civil Suit does not apply

to the gates / open access land on which the gates are installed.

35. The next issue for consideration is whether the land on which the gate

is installed is allotted to the Petitioner pursuant to the allotment made in the

year 1959 and whether the Collector was required to issue notice to the

Petitioner before directing the removal of the gate, and whether the Collector

had jurisdiction to remove the gate without following the procedure

prescribed under Section 53 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. In this

regard, it is necessary to consider the Petitioner’s claim over the strip of

land, which is a open plot used as an access road.

16/24

901 WP 7981.26+IA.doc Dusane

36. The earliest communication available on record in this regard is the

letter dated 6

th

December 1976 addressed by the Municipal Corporation of

Greater Mumbai to the Petitioner. From the said communication, it is

apparent that the Petitioner’s plot was landlocked and that the proposed 44-

feet-wide D.P. road on the Eastern side connecting the Petitioners’ plot, had

not yet been constructed. Until the said 44-feet-wide D.P. road was

completed, the Petitioner’s landlocked plot required access. Accordingly, the

Municipal Corporation granted temporary access, 30 feet in width, from the

southern road adjoining the open space reservation, through the Government

land. The said access passed through the Government land.

37. The temporary access was granted over the Government land, subject

to certain specific conditions, which are relevant for the present purpose are

set out hereinbelow:

“1) That the Society shall submit a registered undertaking that

they will discontinue this access as soon as the Development

Plan road is constructed.

2) That the temporary access will be constructed and

maintained at their own cost.”

38. Similarly, on record is the communication dated 6

th

March 1978 issued

by the Corporation to the Architect of the Petitioner, which indicates the

modified conditions. However, there was no change in the condition that the

17/24

901 WP 7981.26+IA.doc Dusane

Petitioner shall discontinue the temporary access through the open space

reservation as soon as the 44-feet-wide D.P. road on the eastern side of the

Petitioner’s property is constructed.

39. It is the contention of the Petitioner that the access road was

developed by the Petitioner and is meant for the exclusive use of the

Petitioner. It is not disputed before me that the 44-feet. D.P. road on the

eastern side has been completed and that the Petitioner is utilising the same.

The BMC had also issued a notice to the Petitioner on 6

th

May 2025 for

removal of the gate from the open access. Thereafter, upon a complaint

being made, the State took action to remove the gate from the open access.

40. From the maps produced by the Petitioner and the communications on

record, it is clear that the strip of land is owned by the Government over

which the temporary access was granted, and that it does not form a part of

allotment made to the Petitioner in the year 1959. On perusal of the

impugned order and the maps on record, it is seen that the State is the owner

of the land and that the land is maintained as an open plot and the access

connects to D.P. road on one side and the public road on the other side. The

Petitioner had put up a gate on the access and thereby, sought to exclusively

use the access to the exclusion of others. The subject land belongs to the

Government and is maintained as an access road. The condition of granting

18/24

901 WP 7981.26+IA.doc Dusane

such access to the Petitioner was that, until the eastern-side access to the

Petitioner’s property through the D.P. road was made available, the

Petitioner could use the said access.

41. This Court finds that, by the impugned order, the Collector has not

taken over the access, rather, by removing the gate, the Collector has keft the

access open for utilisation by all persons. The contention of the Petitioner

that the strip of land over which access is provided constitutes an exclusive

access to the Petitioner and that the Petitioner is entitled to put up a gate on

the said access cannot be accepted. It is Government open land over which

the Petitioner has been granted a right of access. It cannot be exclusive to the

Petitioner merely because the Petitioner had constructed a bitumen road on

the same. The Government land with open access cannot be taken in for the

exclusive utilisation of the Petitioner; and by the impugned order, the

Petitioner’s access over the said land has not been stopped.

42. The Petitioner has no right to put up a gate on a access road. The land

belongs to the Government and connects to the D.P. road. The impugned

order indicates that the Petitioner had put up iron gates. The order also

indicates that the said road has not been allotted to any person and that gates

having been unauthorisedly erected. The Petitioner has no right to erect a

gate on the access granted by the Corporation over the Government’s land.

19/24

901 WP 7981.26+IA.doc Dusane

43. Considering the same, the next issue is whether the Collector could

have taken action only by resorting to Section 50 of the Maharashtra Land

Revenue Code. In this regard, the Petitioner has relied upon the judgment of

this Court in the case of Shakuntalabai (supra), wherein this Court has taken

the view that the State has to exercise its powers under Section 53 of the

Maharashtra Land Revenue Code by issuing notice to evict the occupants in

illegal occupation and that, without issuing such notice, the occupants

cannot be held to be illegally occupying the land. An enquiry under Section

53(1)(a) is mandatory, and a reasonable opportunity has to be granted before

taking over possession. Perusal of the judgment of Shakuntalabai (supra)

indicates that the lands were specifically allotted to the predecessor-in-title

of the applicants therein, and they were occupying the plots based on

certificates of Kabala. In those facts and circumstances, the Court proceeded

to observe that there can be no summary eviction of a person unauthorisedly

occupying land vested in the Government without following the procedure

under Section 53.

44. In the instant case, there is no grant of Government land over which

access is permitted to the Petitioner. The Petitioner has merely been

permitted to use the access on the Government land; however, by erecting up

a gate, the Petitioner is excluding others from using the same and converting

20/24

901 WP 7981.26+IA.doc Dusane

the access into a personal space. By removing the gate, the Collector has not

stopped the access of the Petitioner, and the Petitioner continues to be

entitled to use the said access. If there is any interference with the access of

the Petitioner over the subject land, the State shall issue appropriate notice to

the Petitioner; however, the direction to remove the gate and keep the access

open to all cannot be interfered with. The gate impedes access to the general

public.

45. By the impugned order, the Deputy Collector has held as under :

“ IN TH EGCOUGRCFJDEAB JMB YVLPSVWM ABCB .7, सदर

9T812F 0B6 hMYE9B9B eBc aB V0 no-WNV p-W1. 2F/ ११०५ मधील

eBc JMoV vW . -aW Wu�PWMV gaB. तसेच लोखंडी गेट ९.१५

-F6 dAW G,AWdAW kEBPKW WE JMoV ML GCW kGCWYEC r(.२०

मीटर डी. पी. र��याला जोडतो. M1GRBVB hB.WALBPF b ,AW 9T812F 0B6

बस�वला आहे. ML GCW GRWYV. 9T.W1dAW EWN WMW–F 4.EW

.T5WdAWaF -W05FdAW JVOf10WVB YL9B9W VMlAWyB YLMoV ABCB. ता�प

ML G,AWyW JV3v.ृCN5B YEVWN EWVW EWN aTC JMlAWyBaF YLMoV

येते. ,AW-O…B MwUGRCFC JV3v.ृतपणे बस�वले�या गेटचा ताबा

PWMVW.2B :BjV ML hWhC MOYEvW J3v.W a&WVB( राईट ऑफ वे)

qC .T5WyF -W05F kW’ ;WlAWM ,AWJVOf10WVB G,AWyB eBcWhWhC

YV5SA :B5B P'A aT“9.

C F CoCWSM YEfAW1Y.C Y-….CFCF9 JV3v.ृतपणे बस�वले�या

0B6yW ?.Cxz CWhW YLVW1. ([.०३. (t(] T)FNAOC PWMVW.2B

PAWEW E .B llAW .WASEWaFyW MYEGC JaEW9 AW .WAWS9AWM MWL

करावा.”

21/24

901 WP 7981.26+IA.doc Dusane

English Translation of the above-said portion is as under :-

“In accordance with the above-mentioned factual

position, it appears that the area of the land where the said

iron gate has been installed, is the area from out of the land

bearing City Survey No. D / 1105 and the holder thereof is

the Government of Maharashtra. Moreover, the iron gate is

installed at the entrance of a 9.15-meter road, which

connects to a proposed 12.20 meter Development Plan

(D.P.) road. The institution has illegally installed the said

iron gate. It further appears that the said road was neither

allocated for the use of local residents nor granted pursuant

to any demand raised by any party. However, it is observed

that the said road is being used unauthorizedly and without

permission. Therefore, taking possession of the

unauthorizedly installed gate presently by the Government,

will facilitate to take appropriate decisions regarding the

said area of the road, if any demand regarding the right of

way or easementary rights (Right of Way) is received from

any party in the future.

Therefore, for the time being, ex-parte possession of

the illegally installed gate on the property under subject

shall be taken over by the Government by the date

23.03.2026 and a detailed report of the action taken shall be

submitted to this office.”

46. By merely removing the gate, access has been made open, and the

Petitioner’s access has neither been obstructed nor prevented in any manner

contrary to the original arrangement. However, the observation of the

Collector in the impugned order, to the extent that the road over Government

22/24

901 WP 7981.26+IA.doc Dusane

land is being unauthorisedly used, is incorrect. The said road has been in use

with the permission of the Municipal Corporation.

47. The public spaces/access are required to be guarded, especially in

densely populated areas. The access over the Government land should

remain available to the Petitioner as well as to others. Undisputedly, the

gates have been erected at the entrance to the access road connecting to the

D.P. Road. The Petitioner was, at no point in time, granted exclusive

possession of the Government land. The Petitioner was merely granted

access over the said land. However, by erecting gates, the Petitioner has

sought to convert such limited access into an exclusive right of use, thereby

causing prejudice, obstruction and inconvenience to other persons who are

equally entitled to access the said Government land. In such circumstances,

the directions issued for removal of the gates cannot be faulted with and are

fully justified.

48.The Petitioner cannot claim an exclusive right over the access road,

nor can the Petitioner’s access be stopped without issuing proper notice. The

learned AGP has also submitted that the access is kept open to all.

Considering the same, the action of the State, by the impugned order

directing removal of the gates, is not interfered. However, the State shall not

be entitled to grant exclusive use of the road/access to any other party, as the

23/24

901 WP 7981.26+IA.doc Dusane

said access connects the D.P. Road on one side with the public road on the

other side. Accordingly, the said access shall remain open to the Petitioner as

well as to others.

49. Rule is made absolute accordingly.

50. The Writ Petition is partly allowed in the above terms.

[ ARUN R. PEDNEKER, J. ]

24/24

901 WP 7981.26+IA.doc Dusane

BHALCHANDRA

GOPAL

DUSANE

Digitally signed by

BHALCHANDRA

GOPAL DUSANE

Date: 2026.09.10

19:47:30 +0530