Ravindra S/O Jagdev Bhagat and Another vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Revenue Department, Mumbai and Ors.

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:3610-DB

¶2

147.PIL.18.2026.odt

¶3

1

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 18 OF 2026 Ravindra S/o. Jagdev Bhagat and another

¶6

.Vs.

¶7

State of Maharashtra and others

¶8

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

¶9

and Registrar's Orders.

¶10

Mr Sumit Gandhe, Advocate for the petitioners Ms T. H. Khan, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 5, 7 and 8/state

¶11

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. th DATED : 04 MARCH , 2026 .

¶12

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶13

The petitioners have approached this Court praying for following reliefs:

¶14

“I. Treat and entertain the instant petition as a "Public Interest Litigation" as the same involves greater public interest;

¶15

II. Issue any appropriate writ, order or directions and thereby direct the respondent no. 7- Superintendent of Land Record, Sangrampur, Dist. Buldhana to measure and ascertain the area of encroachment on the banks of Kedar River in the vicinity of Village Bawanbir, Tq. Sangrampur, Dist. Buldhana, in the interest of justice;

¶16

II. Issue any appropriate writ, order or directions and thereby direct the respondent no. 4-The Collector, Buldhana to remove encroachment on the banks of Kedar River, in the time bound manner, more particularly before the coming rainy season, in the interest of Justice;

¶17

IV. Issue any appropriate writ, order or directions and thereby direct the respondent no. 3- The Special Inspector General of Police,

¶18

147.PIL.18.2026.odt

¶19

2

¶20

Amravati to provide police protection to remove encroachment on the banks of Kedar River, in the interest of Justice;

¶21

V. Grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.”

¶22

The petitioners are the residents of village Bawanbir, Tq. Sangrampur, Distt. Buldhana. The contention of petitioners is that the Kedar river, which is a non-perennial river, emerges from the foothills of Satpuda hills and flows from village Bawanbir. On 22.07.2023, due to the encroachment in the nature of house, shops and religious places, on the banks of Kedar river, the water entered in the village Bawanbir, which caused flood situation. The flood was so severe, that the entire Bawanbir village submerged under water.

¶23

In order to investigate the reasons for such flood situation, the Special Inspector General of Police has visited the village Bawanbir and on inspection, came to the conclusion that the encroachment on the banks of river is responsible for such flood situation.

¶24

After such report of Inspector General of Police, the directions have been issued for removal of such encroachment. However, till date no effective steps were taken by the respondents-authorities. Because of such inaction on the part of respondents -authorities, even after passage of almost two and half years and in view of the ensuing

¶25

3

¶26

147.PIL.18.2026.odt

¶27

monsoon, the petitioners have approached this Court praying for the aforesaid reliefs.

¶28

The perusal of the petition reveals that the petitioner have already approached the respondent-authorities more specifically, respondent No. 5-Tahsildar Sangrampur, District Buldhana by filing a detailed representation on 08.12.2025, which is on record at page 49 (Annexure VII) and representation dated 05.12.2025, which is on record at page 50 (Annexure VIII).

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that inspite of such representations, the respondents have not acted upon such representations nor have decided the same.

¶30

In view of the above, we direct respondent No. 4 – the Collector, Buldhana, so also respondent No. 5-The Tahsildar, Sangrampur, District Buldhana to decide the aforesaid representations dated 08.12.2025 and 05.12.2025 within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order of this Court.

¶31

The respondents are further directed to treat the present Public Interest Litigation as a representation submitted by the petitioners for such reliefs and decide the same in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order of this Court.

¶32

The petitioners undertake to produce copy of the order of this Court alongwith the copy of the present Public

¶33

4 147.PIL.18.2026.odt

¶34

Interest Litigation before the aforesaid respondent Nos. 4 and 5 within a period of one week from today.

¶35

The decision taken thereupon shall be communicated to the petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of decision.

¶36

The Public Interest Litigation stands disposed of, accordingly. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶37

[RAJ D. WAKODE, J] [ANIL S. KILOR, J.]

¶38

Namrata

¶39

Signed by: Miss Namrata Suryawanshi Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 04/03/2026 19:48:32

Ravindra S/O Jagdev Bhagat and Another v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Revenue Department, Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ravindra S/O Jagdev Bhagat and Another v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Revenue Department, Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ashish Chaman Fulzele and Others vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Prin. Secretary, School Education and Sports Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Sandeep Pandurang Patil vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Principal Secretary and Ors.

Kiran Gulabrao Kale vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Principal Secretary and Others

Prakruti Foundation, Thr. Its President, Deepak Bharatsingh Dixit vs Union of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi and Others

Sagar Prakash Ghorpade vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Principal Secretary Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Firoj Rabbilal Jamadar vs State of Maharashtra Thr Its Prin. Secretary, Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Vikki S/O Shrikrushna Khadse and Others vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, General Administration Department, Mumbai and Ors.

Prakruti Foundation, Thr. Its President, Deepak Bharatsingh Dixit vs Union of India, Ministry of Environment and Forests, New Delhi and Others

M/S Kundan Footwear Thr. Prop. Kundanmal S. Bayad and Ors. vs Hinduja Leyland Finance, Thr. Auth. Officer, Amravati

Shri Datta Rice Mills, a Proprietary Firm, Thr. Proprietor, Pushparaj S/O Yadaorao Gaikwad vs Union of India Thr. Secy., Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution Dept. and Ors.

Priti Manoj Buindile vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Rural Development Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Vajra Mining Thr. Attorney Mr. Debashis Sinha and Ors. vs Western Coalfields Ltd., Thr. Chairman Cum Managing Director, Nagpur and Anr.

Ramdas S/O Dhonduji Wankhade and Another vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Rural Development Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

M/S Clean Coal Enterprises Private Limited, Bilaspur, Thr. Auth. Sign., Ashish Agrawal vs M/S Maharashtra State Mining Corp. Ltd., Thr. Managing Director, Nagpur and Ors.