Bombay High Court
T R Ranka Ankit Jwellers, And Ors vs The Chief Officer And Ors on 25 March, 2026
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
2026:BHC-AS:14821-DB 1 of 5 905.LPA.271.2011.DOC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.281 OF 2011
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.3934 OF 2011
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO.335 OF 2011
IN
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.281 OF 2011
1. T.R.Ranka of Ambarnath,
2. Chandanmal Virchand Jain,
3. Rameshkumar Jian,
4. Hukmichand Ranka,
5. Chander lal Kukreja,
6. R.P.Salvi,
7. Premchand Sheraji Kumbar,
8. Manish Gala,
9. R.S.Nagdev,
10. Rameshlal Sidhani,
11. Kishore Javerchand Oswal Jain,
12. Hukumrai Premchandani Bhagchandani,
13. V.L.Vira,
14. Mahendra Jain,
15. Meghji Premji Gala,
16. Chandrakant Liladhar Shah,
17. Mohandas Lalwani,
18. Khimji Shah,
19. U.A.Vira,
20. Ashok Sheth,
21. Bhajanlal Asrani,
22. Chunilal Nagda,
23. Om Prakash Somani,
24. Smt.Pushpa Vashulal Tara,
25. Ashok Bhogumal Malkani,
All of them having shops at Station Road,
Ambarnath (West)-421 501. Appellants
versus
1. The Chief Officer,
Ambarnath Municipal Council,
2. Ambarnath Municipal Council,
3. The State of Maharashtra,
4. The Zilla Parishad, Ambarnath. Respondents
M.S.Thatte
::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2026 01:21:04 :::
2 of 5 905.LPA.271.2011.DOC
_______
Mr.Rajiv Narula with Adv.Tarang Jagtiani and Ms.Nidhi Loya i/by Jhangiani,
Narula & Associates for Appellants.
Ms.P.J.Gavhane, AGP, for Respondent no.3 State.
Mr.Balkrishna D.Joshi for Respondent nos.1 and 2.
_______
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
DATE: 25th March 2026 P.C.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal assails the judgment and order dated 12 th August 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge on Writ Petition No.3934 of 2011 filed by the Appellants, whereby the said writ petition came to be dismissed.
2. The challenge of the Appellants in the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was to the show cause notice dated 20 th April 2011 and the order dated 4th June 2011 passed by the Chief Officer of the Ambarnath Municipal Council (AMC for short). An action was resorted by the AMC against the Appellants in regard to utilization of some area of land from the Appellants' land for the construction of storm water drainage on both sides of the road, on which the shops of the Appellants are situated.
3. The case of the Appellants was to the effect that they were the beneficiaries of the land in question on which the shops/structures were constructed. They contended that the land was granted to them on lease by "Thane Zilla Parishad" and to that effect they had documents. It was also contended by the Appellants that on earlier two occasions, part of the lands which M.S.Thatte ::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2026 01:21:04 ::: 3 of 5 905.LPA.271.2011.DOC were leased to the Appellants, were utilised/taken away for road widening. They contended that even the Zilla Parishad had issued a letter addressed to the Chief Officer of AMC that the Zilla Parishad was not agreeable to let out any further land for the said purpose to the AMC (page 203 of paper book).
4. The AMC contends that the work in question is a public work and it is imperative that such work of providing storm water drainage on both sides of the road was necessary and the said work has already been delayed. Mr.Joshi, learned counsel for AMC has drawn our attention to the notice issued to the Appellants dated 20th April 2011 (page 69 of the paper book) which is addressed to the Chief Executive Engineer of Zilla Parishad, Thane as also the Appellants, which, inter alia, records on the need for such lands for the purpose of storm water drainage/public works, and that an action under Sections 176, 177(2) and Section 177(3) read with Section 179 of Maharashtra Zilla Parishads, Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act (`The Act' for short), will be undertaken. The last paragraph of the said communication as addressed by the Chief Officer of AMC is required to be noted, which reads thus :
(Official translation) " If sufficient cause is not shown / co-operation is not extended in that regard in such a manner to the satisfaction of the Municipal Council, then, as per the provisions of Sections 176, 177(2), Section 177(3) and Section 179 of the aforesaid Act, the Municipal Council shall remove / demolish the portion admeasuring 2.00 X 1.90 Sq. Mtrs. that is causing an hindrance and shall immediately take possession of the said land / a part of the shop on the said land on which a gutter of the width of 1.80 meters and a pathway are proposed to be constructed on both the sides of the road and then such 18.00 meters (60 feet) wide land shall be considered as a part of the Lokmanya Tilak Road as shown in the sanctioned Development Plan and the same shall be vested in the Municipal Council in such manner, which may please be noted."
M.S.Thatte ::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2026 01:21:04 ::: 4 of 5 905.LPA.271.2011.DOC
5. It is on such backdrop, we had heard the learned counsel for the parties on the earlier occasion, as also had extensively heard the learned counsel on the proceedings.
6. It appears to be clear that the AMC is constituted under the provisions of the Act, as set out in its communication dated 20 th April 2011 (supra). We may also observe that there were multiple contentions which were urged before the learned Single Judge on behalf of the AMC including on the construction of the structures as undertaken by the Appellants/Petitioners to be unauthorized/illegal, and the opposition to such contention of the Appellants that the construction was legal and valid and in fact plans were sanctioned. Also on behalf of the Appellants reliance was also placed on the decrees passed by the Civil Court in respect of certain structures to contend that such structures were not unauthorized.
7. Be that as it may, we do not intend to deal with the question as to which structures of the 27 Appellants are authorized or unauthorized, as all such contentions with whatever position on record needs to be dealt in accordance with law, if any action against any unauthorized structure is required to be taken. The principles of law in this regard are well settled.
8. Insofar as the issue in the present proceeding is concerned, it is in regard to part of the lands of the Appellants being taken under Sections 176, 177(1)(b) and (2) and Section 179 of the Act for the purpose of the public works of installing/construction of a storm water drain. In such context Mr.Joshi, learned advocate for Respondent nos.1 and 2 has placed on record a communication issued to the Petitioners dated 24th March 2026 in which the Chief Officer of the AMC M.S.Thatte ::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2026 01:21:04 ::: 5 of 5 905.LPA.271.2011.DOC has taken a stand that the AMC would now resort to the provisions of Section 176 of the Act for undertaking the public works in question on both sides of the road and till such procedure is adopted and completed, the earlier notice issued shall not be acted upon. We have taken such letter on record, which is marked "X" for identification. We accept the statement as made by the Chief Officer of AMC Mr.Umakant Gaikwad as reflected in the said letter. We accordingly permit the Ambarnath Municipal Council to follow the due procedure under Section 176 and the allied provisions of the Act. In this regard all contentions of the Appellants are also expressly kept open.
9. In view of such fair stand taken by Ambarnath Municipal Council, in our opinion, further adjudication of this Letters Patent Appeal is not called for. However, in view of the aforesaid stand taken by the AMC, the order dated 4 th June 2011 as impugned in the writ petition, would be required to be set aside, as now a fresh procedure is sought to be adopted, in accordance with law by the Ambarnath Municipal Council. It is accordingly quashed and set aside.
10. The Letters Patent Appeal accordingly stands disposed of in terms of our aforesaid orders and observations. No costs.
11. Civil Application No.335 of 2011 does not survive and stands disposed of.
(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
M.S.Thatte
::: Uploaded on - 27/03/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 28/03/2026 01:21:04 :::