Disposed¶37

Jamil Khawaja Akhtar v. the State of Maharashtra Thru G P and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Apr 2026WP/5076/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition disposed with four-week protection against coercive steps/demolition; notice dated 10.04.2026 by Circle Officer, Kusgaon Budruk, Taluka Maval, Pune re allegedly unauthorized structure; contention of no hearing/no opportunity of representation; remedy of approaching Tahsildar; pending civil suit, Civil Court Senior Division, Vadgaon Maval; no merits observations; Bombay High Court, Karnik & Modak, JJ., 17 April 2026.

What did the court decide?

Limited protection: no coercive steps against the Petitioner for four weeks from the date of the order; liberty to pursue appropriate remedy against the notice, to be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law; no observations on merits or on the pending civil suit. ¶37

Jamil Khawaja Akhtar vs the State of Maharashtra Thru G P and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner, who contends that the Circle Officer's notice dated 10 April 2026 regarding his allegedly unauthorized structure was passed without hearing him and without opportunity of representation, is entitled to interim protection from coercive steps (demolition) while he pursues the available remedy of approaching the Tahsildar.

¶26

Court's answer

Limited protection granted: no coercive steps shall be taken against the Petitioner for a period of four weeks from the date of the order.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The Petitioner is at liberty to adopt an appropriate remedy challenging the notice (referred to in the order as dated 12th April 2026, though described elsewhere in the order as dated 10th April 2026).

¶31

Key takeaways

Whatever remedy the Petitioner avails against the notice shall be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law.ratio¶35
The Court expressly made no observations on the merits of the matter.ratio¶36
No observations were made in respect of the pending civil suit; the suit shall proceed on its own merits and in accordance with law.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (M. S. Karnik and S. M. Modak, JJ.) disposed of a Civil Writ Petition by Jamil Khawaja Akhtar challenging a notice dated 10 April 2026 issued by the Circle Officer, Kusgaon Budruk, Taluka Maval, District Pune, concerning a structure allegedly constructed unauthorizedly by the Petitioner, on the contention that it was passed without hearing him or affording opportunity of representation. Noting the learned AGP's point that the remedy of approaching the Tahsildar was available, the Petitioner's stated willingness to avail it, imminent demolition scheduled at 12.30 p.m., and a pending civil suit at Vadgaon Maval (in which the notice is not under challenge), the Court granted limited protection — directing that no coercive steps be taken against the Petitioner for four weeks — permitted him to adopt appropriate remedy against the notice, to be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law, and expressly made no observations on the merits or on the civil suit.

¶1

WP 5076 of 2026.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 5076 OF 2026

Jamil Khawaja Akhtar

...Petitioner

Vs.

The State of Maharashtra Thru G. P.

¶8

The Divisional Officer

¶9

Tehsildar, Taluka – Maval Vadgaon, District – Pune

¶10

Yogesh Machindar Mapari

¶11

Dhanu Machendra Mapaari

¶12

...Respondents

¶13

¶14

Adv. Ashok Mishra a/w Adv. Shabnam Shaikh and Adv. Shubham Mishra - Advocate for the Petitioner Smt. R. A. Salunkhe – AGP for the Respondent-State

¶15

¶16

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK AND S. M. MODAK, JJ. DATE : 17^th APRIL 2026

¶17

P. C. :-

¶18

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.

¶19

The challenge in this petition is to notice dated 10^th April 2026,

¶20

issued by the Circle Officer, Kusgaon Budruk, Taluka Maval, District

¶21

Digitally signed SEEMA by SEEMAKSHITIJYELKAR KSHITIJ Date: YELKAR 2026.04.1713:43:16 +0530

¶22

1/3

¶23

Seema

¶24

WP 5076 of 2026.doc

¶25

Pune, in respect of the structure allegedly constructed unauthorizedly

¶26

by the Petitioner. It is contention of the Petitioner that the order has been passed without hearing the Petitioner and without giving any opportunity of making representation.

¶27

The learned AGP submitted that against the impugned order, there is remedy of approaching the Tahsildar.

¶28

The learned counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, submitted that he would approach the Tahsildar, however, it is submitted that demolition is scheduled today at 12.30 p.m..

¶29

We find that even civil Suit has been filed by the Petitioner before the Civil Court, Senior Division, Vadgaon Maval and suit is pending. It is submitted that in the suit, notice dated 10^th April 2026 is not under challenge.

¶30

In such view of the matter, we are inclined to grant limited protection to the Petitioner. It is accordingly directed that no coercive steps against the Petitioner be taken for a period of four weeks from today

¶31

The Petitioner may adopt appropriate remedy challenging the notice dated 12^th April 2026. The remedy which is availed of shall be

¶32

2/3

¶33

Seema

¶34

WP 5076 of 2026.doc

¶35

decided on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶36

We have not made any observations on the merits of the matter. In respect of the civil Suit, we have not made any observations. The suit has to proceed on its own merits and in accordance with law.

¶37

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶38

(S. M. MODAK, J.)

¶39

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶40

3/3

¶41

Seema

Jamil Khawaja Akhtar v. the State of Maharashtra Thru G P and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jamil Khawaja Akhtar v. the State of Maharashtra Thru G P 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

Similar cases

Sanjeev Suvarna vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Bluestone Properties Private Limited vs the Chief Engineer (Development Plan)

Kesari Begam Mohammed Yunus Khan vs State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secreatary

Jitendra Sadanand Mahulkar and 7 Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and 9 Ors.

Bhavesh Premji Chothani vs Slum Redevelopment Authority Sra and 4 Ors.

Umesh Paramanand Chalwadi vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.