Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Damu Deoram Bhosale, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court against the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (MSRDC) and others. The petitioner claimed to be the owner/possessor of agricultural lands bearing Gat Nos. 59, 60, 61, 70 and 74. The grievance was that respondent no.3, a private contractor (G.V.P.R. Co.), had deposited debris, stone, soil, murum and construction material on the said lands, causing damage. The petitioner alleged that respondent no.1, MSRDC, failed to take action to prevent the encroachment and sought a writ of mandamus directing MSRDC to instruct the contractor to remove the debris and restore the land to its original state, or alternatively, to restrain the contractor from disturbing the petitioner's possession. The court heard arguments from counsel for the petitioner, respondent no.1, respondent nos.2 and 4 (the State), and respondent no.3. The judgment, delivered orally by a Division Bench consisting of Justices G.S. Kulkarni and Advait M. Sethna on 28 April 2025, is not fully reproduced in the provided text; only the initial portion up to the statement of the case is available. Consequently, the legal issues, detailed arguments, court's analysis, decision, and ratio decidendi cannot be extracted.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Mandamus - Article 226, Constitution of India, 1950 - Petitioner filed writ petition alleging inaction by MSRDC in preventing encroachment by private contractor on agricultural lands, seeking direction for removal of debris and restoration or protection of possession. The judgment text provided does not contain the court's analysis or final decision. (Paras Not mentioned)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution should be issued directing respondent no.1 (MSRDC) to direct respondent no.3 (private contractor) to remove debris and restore agricultural lands, and whether to restrain disturbance of possession.
Law Points
- Article 226
- writ of mandamus
- inaction of state authority
- encroachment
- restoration of land
Case Details
2025 LawText (BOM) (04) 120
Writ Petition No. 4322 of 2024
G.S. Kulkarni, Advait M. Sethna
Pratik Tomti for petitioner, Yogita More for respondent no.1, Sachin H. Kankal for respondent nos.2 and 4, Rajni Divekar for respondent no.3
Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking mandamus and directions against state authorities and a private contractor.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought a direction to respondent no.1 (MSRDC) to direct respondent no.3 (contractor) to remove debris, stone, soil, murum, construction material from Gat Nos. 59, 60, 61, 70, 74 and restore the land to original state; alternatively, to direct respondent no.3 not to disturb petitioner’s possession of those lands.
Filing Reason
Alleged inaction by respondent no.1 (MSRDC) in preventing respondent no.3 (G.V.P.R. Co., a private contractor) from encroaching and causing damage to petitioner’s agricultural lands.
Issues
Whether MSRDC failed to act against the encroachment and damage caused by respondent no.3 on petitioner’s agricultural lands.
Whether a writ of mandamus should issue under Article 226 to compel removal of debris and restoration of land.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner alleged inaction by MSRDC and sought court’s intervention to protect agricultural lands.
Specific contentions of respondents are not available in the provided text.
Judgment Excerpts
“a. That a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction be issued, ordering and directing the Respondent No. 1 to direct the Respondent No. 3 to remove the debris, stone, soil, murum, construction material etc. on Gat Nos. 59, 60, 61, 70 and 74 and restore the land of the Petitioner to its original state.”
“b. That a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction be issued, ordering and directing the Respondent No. 1 to direct the Respondent No. 3 not to enter and disturb the possession of the Petitioner of Gat Nos. 59, 60, 61, 70 and 74 in possession of the Petitioner.”
“The petitioner is primarily aggrieved by the alleged inaction of respondent no.1 i.e. MSRDC who has failed to prevent the respondent no.3 i.e. G.V.P.R. Co. - Private contractor from encroaching and causing damage to the agricultural lands of the petitioner.”
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India, 1950: Article 226
