Dr. Rajesh Shridharrao Jawade vs Amravati Municipal Corporation, Amravati Thr. Its Commissioner and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Dr. Rajesh Shridharrao Jawade vs Amravati Municipal Corporation, Amravati Thr. Its Commissioner and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; the communication dated 30.05.2024 (O.W. No. 201 of 2024), the communication dated 30.05.2024 (O.W. No.221 of 2024), the order dated 28.05.2024 granting stay to the construction behind the petitioner's back, and the order dated 21.06.2024 directing joint measurement were quashed and set aside; rule made absolute; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Municipal Corporation (through respondent No. 2, Assistant Director Town Planning) had jurisdiction/statutory authority to issue the impugned communications and orders directing stoppage and removal of construction, imposing a stay, and directing a joint measurement, in relation to construction on private land caught up in a pending private civil dispute over ingress and egress.

Court's answer

Learned counsel for the Corporation failed to point out any statutory provision conferring powers on the Corporation to enter private property and stay ongoing construction merely on the basis of a complaint received from a private individual; its intervention in a private dispute was accordingly unsupported by any statutory power identified to the Court.

Ratio / Principle

The Corporation did not allege that the petitioner's construction was contrary to the sanctioned plan, and that was not the reason stated in any of the impugned communications; therefore, in the Court's view, all these communications and orders are without jurisdiction.

Key takeaways

Both communications dated 30.05.2024 (O.W. No. 201 of 2024 and O.W. No.221 of 2024) and the order dated 28.05.2024 granting stay to the construction behind the petitioner's back are quashed and set aside.ratio¶25
The order dated 21.06.2024, which directed the parties to carry out a joint measurement to enable the respondent authority to pass a final order, is likewise quashed and set aside.ratio¶25
Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs; pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) — Dr. Rajesh Shridharrao Jawade v. Amravati Municipal Corporation and others — WRIT PETITION NO.5569 OF 2024 (Anil S. Kilor and Raj D. Wakode, JJ.; dated 18 February 2026). The petitioner was carrying out construction on private land, over which a dispute concerning ingress and egress with respondent Nos. 3 and 4 was pending before the competent Civil Court, whose rejection of respondents 3 and 4's injunction application is recorded. Into this private dispute the Corporation intervened: respondent No. 2 (Assistant Director Town Planning) issued two communications dated 30.05.2024 (O.W. Nos. 201 and 221 of 2024) directing stoppage of construction and removal of certain construction, an order dated 28.05.2024 granted a stay without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, and an order dated 21.06.2024 directed a joint measurement toward a 'final order'. Counsel for the Corporation could point to no statutory provision empowering it to enter private property and stay construction merely on a private complaint, and it was not the Corporation's case that the construction deviated from the sanctioned plan. Holding all the impugned communications and orders without jurisdiction, the Division allowed the writ petition, quashed and set aside all four instruments, made rule absolute, and ordered no costs.

2026:BHC-NAG:3012-DB

902.wp.5569.2024.odt

1

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

WRIT PETITION NO.5569 OF 2024

Dr. Rajesh Shridharrao Jawade

.Vs.

Amravati Municipal Corporation, Amravati and others

......................................................................................................... Ms Gauri Vekatraman, Adv. a/w Mr Mayur Mainde, Advocates for the petitioner Mr R. D. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mr. J. J. Chandurkar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 and 4

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. th DATED : 18 FEBRUARY , 2026 .

P.C.

Heard.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

In the present writ petition, two communications dated 30.05.2024, issued by the respondent No.2-Assistant Director Town Planning, Municipal Corporation, Amravati as well as the order dated 21.06.2024, are under challenge.

Vide communication dated 30.05.2024, respondent No. 2–Assistant Director, Amravati directed the petitioner to stop the construction. By a separate communication of the same date, respondent No. 2 informed the petitioner that, despite the letter issued to stop the

2

902.wp.5569.2024.odt

construction, he continued with the same and, accordingly, directed him to remove certain construction.

There is another order dated 28.05.2024, which is under challenge, whereby a stay on the construction was granted without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Further, the subsequent order dated 21.06.2024, which is impugned in the present petition, directs the parties to undertake a joint measurement and place the report on record, upon which a final decision would be taken regarding the dispute between the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 & 4.

Admittedly, the construction in question is being carried out on a private land. A dispute regarding ingress and egress over the said land is pending between the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 before the competent Civil Court. The application for injunction filed by respondent Nos. 3 and 4 seeking to restrain the petitioner from carrying out construction in question has already been rejected by the Civil Court.

We are surprised to note that in a private dispute, the Corporation has intervened and passed certain orders. The learned counsel for the Corporation has failed to point out any statutory provision conferring powers on the corporation to enter into the private property and stay the ongoing construction merely on the basis of a complaint received from a private individual.

3 902.wp.5569.2024.odt

It is not the case of the Corporation that the construction, which is being carried out by the petitioner, is contrary to the sanctioned plan and further, it is not the reason stated in any of the communications impugned in the present writ petition. Therefore, according to us, all these communications and orders are without jurisdiction. Accordingly, we pass the following order :

i) The writ petition is allowed. ii} The communication dated 30.05.2024 bearing O.W. No. 201 of 2024, communication dated 30.05.2024 bearing O.W. No.221 of 2024, order dated 28.05.2024, granting stay to the construction behind the back of the petitioner and order dated 21.06.2024, directing the parties to carry out the joint measurement to enable the respondent authority to pass the final order are hereby quashed and set aside.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Rule is made absolute. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

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

Namrata

Signed by: Miss Namrata Suryawanshi Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 21/02/2026 12:09:32