Dismissed¶52

Mohammad Waseem M Faheem Farooqui and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others

Bombay HC21 Apr 2025WP/4166/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Maharashtra Highways Act Section 23 Section 24; encroachment removal notice; Collector appeal rejected; highway concretisation not expansion; no land acquisition required; sale-deed of structure not proof of land ownership; 30 meter highway width fixed by statute and notifications; measurement/joint measurement not required; Sukh Dutt Ratra MANU/SC/0424/2022; Manoj Tibrewal Akash MANU/SC/1194/2024; Kashinath/Kshinath v. Purushottam Tulshiram Tekade 2006(37)AIC 707; Biloli; Aurangabad Bench; writ petitions dismissed; interim relief extended eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

No relief on merits; the interim relief earlier granted by this Court was extended for a further period of eight weeks from the date of the judgment. ¶52

Mohammad Waseem M Faheem Farooqui and Others vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief on merits; the interim relief earlier granted by this Court was extended for a further period of eight weeks from the date of the judgment.

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the notices served on the Petitioners were issued for expansion of the highway, such that acquisition of land was a prerequisite to any removal of their structures. +1 more

¶33

Court's answer

The notices were not issued for expansion of the highway but for removal of encroachment because concretisation of the road was to be done; no additional land was required and no acquisition thereof was necessitated.

¶41

Ratio / Principle

The initial burden lay on the Petitioners to prima facie show that their structures stand on private land; the sale-deeds relied upon indicate only a sale transaction in respect of the structures, and there is absolutely no evidence on record that the Petitioners own land other than that belonging to the highway authority.

¶41

Key takeaways

The width of a State highway is determined by the provisions of the Act and notifications issued from time to time; the highway in question is of 30 meters width, and since this is no case of expansion of the width of the highway, the question of determining the area of the highway on the basis of measurement does not arise.ratio¶45
The Petitioners failed to point out to the appellate authority or to this Court any right, title or interest in the lands on which the structures stand, or that the structures lie beyond the highway area; consequently the question of calling upon the Collector to undertake an exercise of carrying out measurement etc. does not arise.ratio¶48

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), R. M. Joshi, J., 21-04-2025 — Common judgment dismissing four writ petitions (WP 3792, 4166, 6100 and 6107 of 2024) by structure-owners at Biloli challenging the Collector's orders under Section 24, Maharashtra Highways Act, rejecting their appeals against notices for removal of encroachment. The Court held that the notices were issued for removal of encroachment to enable concretisation of the existing road, not for expansion of the highway, so no additional land was required and no acquisition was necessitated. The Petitioners' sale-deeds evidenced only a sale transaction in respect of the structures, not ownership of the land; they failed to prima facie show that their structures stood on private land outside the 30-metre-wide State highway, whose width is fixed by the provisions of the Act and notifications. Consequently, no measurement exercise by the Collector was called for. The Court distinguished Manoj Tibrewal Akash (MANU/SC/1194/2024) — here notices under Section 23 were issued and opportunity given — and Kashinath v. Purushottam Tulshiram Tekade (2006(37)AIC 707), which concerned boundaries of private properties. Where due procedure is followed, a person unable to show any right in a structure encroaching on a highway is not entitled to protection. Interim relief extended for eight weeks.

¶1

¶2

wp3792.24.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

21 WRIT PETITION NO. 3792 OF 2024

¶5

Anjum Parveen Nahadi Abdul Ajij & another ….Petitioners VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others …..Respondents

¶6

….. Mr. P. P. Uttarwar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S. B. Jadhav, AGP for the State.

¶7

AND

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 4166 OF 2024 Mohammad Waseem M Faheem Farooqui & others .....Petitioners VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others .....Respondents ….. Mr. P. P. Uttarwar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S. B. Jadhav, AGP for the State. Mrs. S. S.. Chintamani, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 and 4.

¶9

AND 24 WRIT PETITION NO. 6100 OF 2024 Mohammad Ahemad Hussain Qureshi ….Petitioner VERSUS

¶10

The State of Maharashtra & others …..Respondents Mr. P. P. Uttarwar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for the State.

¶11

2 - wp3792.24.odt

¶12

AND

¶13

WRIT PETITION NO. 6107 OF 2024

¶14

Ashabee Syed Mahemood Syed .....Petitioner VERSUS

¶15

The State of Maharashtra & others .....Respondents

¶16

Mr. P. P. Uttarwar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. B. A. Shinde, AGP for the State.

¶17

CORAM : R. M. JOSHI, J. DATE : 21^st APRIL, 2025.

¶18

PER COURT :

¶19

Learned counsel Mrs. S. S. Chintamani makes a

¶20

statement that she has wrongly caused appearance on behalf of Respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Learned AGP appears for those Respondents.

¶21

In view of this, learned counsel Mrs. Chintamani stands discharged.

¶22

Heard finally at the stage of admission by consent of both

sides.

wp3792.24.odt

Since all these petitions involve similar facts and same question of law, they are decided by this common judgment.

¶27

These petitions take exception to the order passed by the Collector under Section 24 of Maharashtra Highways Act whereby the appeal preferred by the Petitioners against issuance of notice for removal of encroachment came to be rejected.

¶28

Petitioners claim to be owners of different structures situated at Biloli and further claim to have either constructed house/structure or purchased the same from erstwhile owner. One of the Petitioners has claimed that she had purchased the property from her father and that her father was the owner of the said property since long i.e. from 1954. It is also claimed that construction permission was obtained from the Municipal Council and construction has been done as per the plan sanctioned. On 14.04.2012, highway authority issued notice under Section 23 of the Maharashtra Highways Act alleging that the properties possessed by the Petitioners is an encroachment on the land of the authority. Petitioners, therefore, filed appeal before the Collector. On 09.05.2012, the Collector passed order disposing of the appeals with

¶29

¶30

wp3792.24.odt

¶31

observations that as there is already removal of encroachment, nothing survives in the appeal.

¶32

Petitioners claim that the notices were issued to them for expansion of highway. It is the case of the Petitioners that without acquisition of land, there cannot be expansion of the width of the said highway. Since Petitioners had claimed themselves to be the owners of the structure and the land thereunder, appeals came to be filed under Section 24 of the Act before the Collector. The Collector by the impugned order rejected the appeals. Hence, these petitions.

¶33

Learned counsel for Petitioners submits that the notices were issued by the authority for the purpose of expansion of the highway and as such without acquiring the land, no such work would be possible to be done. It is his submission by relying upon the sale-deeds that Petitioners are the owners of the structures and without there being any ascertainment of the exact position of the said structures and without causing measurement, it is not open for the authority to remove the said structures. In order to support his submission, he has placed reliance on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sukh Dutt Ratra and others vs. State of

¶34

¶35

wp3792.24.odt

¶36

Himachal Pradesh and others, MANU/SC/0424/2022. Similarly, reference is made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the petition of Manoj Tibrewal Akash, MANU/SC/1194/2024. It is his further submission by referring to the judgment of this Court in case of Kshinath vs. Purushottam Tulshiram Tekade and others, 2006(37)AIC 707 that unless the measurement is carried out, it is not open for the authority to determine the encroachment.

¶37

Learned AGP supports the impugned orders.

¶38

There is no dispute about the fact that the Petitioners were issued notice in the year 2012 in respect of encroachment on the said highway. Further order dated 09.05.2012 passed by the Collector indicates that the said encroachment was removed. It is for this reason of removal of encroachment, appeals came to be disposed of. There is no challenge to the fact that there was removal of encroachment caused by the Petitioners. It is thus clear that Petitioners were issued the notices previously in respect of encroachment carried out prior to the year 2012 and now notices are issued for encroachments done after 2012.

¶39

¶40

wp3792.24.odt

¶41

In the light of these facts, initial burden would be on the Petitioners to prima facie show that their structures are on the private land and not on the area of State highway. In this regard specific query was raised to the learned counsel for the Petitioners in order to show that the Petitioners are the owners of the land which is not covered by the said highway. In this regard though reference is made to the sale-deeds executed in favour of the Petitioners, but said sale-deeds only indicate that there was a sale transaction in respect of the structure. Except for these sale-deeds, there is absolutely no evidence on record to indicate that Petitioners are the owners of land other than the land belonging to the highway authority. In this backdrop, if the notices issued to the Petitioners are considered, perusal of the same indicates that the same are not issued for the purpose of expansion of highway. The notices are issued for removal of encroachment for the reason that the concretisation of the said road was to be done. Thus, this is not case wherein any additional land would be required and acquisition thereof is necessitated.

¶42

At this stage, it would be relevant to take note of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Manoj (supra). The Hon’ble Supreme Court was dealing with a letter received by the

¶43

¶44

wp3792.24.odt

¶45

Supreme Court complaining of unlawful demolition of the houses and shops by the authority of the State. It is observed therein that no notices were issued to the party and that demolition has been done in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice. As far as present case is concerned, admittedly, notices are issued under Section 23 of the Act and an opportunity was given to the Petitioners to substantiate their case. Petitioners, however, have failed to substantiate their case before the authority. In so far as judgment of Kashinath is concerned, dispute therein pertains to the determination of boundaries of private properties. In the light of the facts of the said case, it was observed that the appointment of City Surveyor or Cadastral Surveyor for taking joint measurement is necessary. As far as State Highway is concerned, width of the highway is determined by the provisions of the act and notifications issued from time to time. There is no dispute about the fact that in the instant case, the highway in question is of 30 meters width. Since this is no case of expansion of width of highway, question of determination of area of said highway on the basis of measurement does not arise.

¶46

¶47

wp3792.24.odt

¶48

In any case, prima facie, it was for the Petitioners to point out the appellate authority or atleast this Court in this petition that they are having any right, title or interest in the lands on which structures are situated or atleast it should have been pointed out that the structures are beyond the area of highway. Since the Petitioners have failed to make out any such case, question of calling upon the Collector to undertake exercise of carrying out measurement etc. does not arise.

¶49

It would not be out of context to record that owing to inaction of Authorities, Highways/roads are encroached upon by unscrupulous persons. This leads to occurrence of accidents involving loss of lives. Thus, in case where it is found that there is encroachment upon highways/roads, it would be open to the Authorities to remove the same. When due procedure as laid down by the law has been followed and the person who alleged to have done encroachment on road is not able to show any right in the structure, would not be entitled to seek protection of the same. No such illegality can be allowed to be perpetrated by taking sympathetic view.

¶50

¶51

wp3792.24.odt

¶52

For the above reasons, this Court finds no justification to cause any interference in the impugned order. Hence, the petitions are dismissed.

¶53

Learned counsel for Petitioners at this stage seeks extension of interim relief granted by this Court for a further period of eight weeks.

¶54

Learned AGP opposes the said request.

¶55

Ordinarily, this Court would be justified in rejecting the request made. However, since there is relief in favour of the Petitioners for over a period of one year, the same is extended for a period of eight weeks from today.

¶56

dyb

Mohammad Waseem M Faheem Farooqui and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammad Waseem M Faheem Farooqui and Others v. the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shahnawaj @ Shahnawaz @ Shahnawaz Abrar Khan vs the State of Maharashtra

Paulinus Ndubueze Madu vs the Union of India and Anr.

Rohan a. Agarwal vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ashish Devendra Paswan vs State of Maharashtra

Ashabee Syed Mahemood Syed vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Others

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Mr. Narendra Balwan