Sambhaji Mahadev Jadhav v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

2026:BHC-AUG:6084-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 917 WRIT PETITION NO. 1492 OF 2026 SAMBHAJI MAHADEV JADHAV

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS ...

Mr. M.B. Kolpe, Advocate for petitioner Mr. A.M. Phule, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2 ...

CORAM :

SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI & HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, JJ.

DATE :

10th FEBRUARY, 2026 ORDER :

.

Heard learned Advocate for petitioner and learned AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2. No necessity to issue notice to other respondents. The petition has been filed for following reliefs : "(A) By issuing writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature, respondent No.2 may kindly be directed to conduct enquiry and take necessary corrective steps to remove encroachment on the public road from State Highway No.236 to Lohta (West), Tq. Kallam, Dist. Dharashiv.

917_WP_1492_2026 (C) By issuing writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature, the impugned notice dated 16.12.2025 bearing outward No.493/2025 issued by respondent No.4 may kindly be quashed and set aside."

Learned Advocate for petitioner states that by notice dated 25.11.2025 respondent No.4 asked petitioner and others to remove the encroachment on the road. Said notice was replied, however, without considering the same the order has been passed on 16.12.2025. According to learned Advocate for petitioner, respondent No.3 has no authority to issue such notice and take action.

The first and the foremost fact to be noted is that in the notice dated 25.11.2025 it is stated that the concerned road was 18 feet wide and due to encroachment by petitioner and others there is hurdle in transportation of sugarcane. It is then stated that on 17.11.2025 the said department had cleared the encroachment; yet again the encroachment has been done and, therefore, one Shivaji Bhaskar Adsul and other farmers appears to have given representation to respondent No.3 by letter dated 19.11.2025, thereupon, present petitioner and others were asked to remove their encroachment. In the reply dated 01.12.2025 petitioner appears to have stated that there is no encroachment and no obstruction is being caused. Now, by another communication dated 16.12.2025 respondent No.3

917_WP_1492_2026 has directed petitioner and others to remove the encroachment. According to our considered opinion, all these are the disputed facts. Whether petitioner has made encroachment or not would be considered by an appropriate Court. So also, it is then required to be seen, as to whether, when on 17.11.2025 certain action was taken by respondent No.3, whether it was objected and, therefore, we do not find this to be a fit case where we should exercise our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition, therefore, stands dismissed.

( HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. ) agd