Bombay High Court
Madhav Dattaram Ingewad And Another vs The State Of Maharashtra And Others on 30 March, 2026
Author: Nitin B. Suryawanshi
Bench: Nitin B. Suryawanshi
2026:BHC-AUG:16982-DB
32+34
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
32 WRIT PETITION NO. 10872 OF 2019
MADHAV DATTARAM INGEWAD AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Adv. Uttarwar Pavan P. for the Petitioners
Mr. P. K. Lakhotiya, AGP for State
Adv. R. R. Bangar for Respondent No. 1
Adv. A. B. Dhongade for Respondent No. 3 - UOI
...
AND / WITH
34 WRIT PETITION NO. 2458 OF 2021
SHIVRAJ NAVNATH SONTAKKE
VERSUS
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND OTHERS
...
Adv. Uttarwar Pavan P. for the Petitioner
Ms. V. S. Chaudhari, AGP for State
Adv. R. D. Sanap for Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4
...
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : 30.03.2026
PER COURT:
1. Learned advocate for the petitioners undertakes to remove office objections within two weeks from today.
2. The issues raised in Writ Petition No. 10872 of 2019 are squarely covered by the order passed by this Court [Coram : C. V. Bhadang & Sandipkumar C. More, JJ.] dated 05.07.2022 in Writ Petition No. 8722 of 2021 with connected matters, wherein in similar circumstances this Court has observed as under :
ksk/ 1/432+34
"3. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Bhagoji S/o. Nathaji Maind and others Versus State of Maharashtra and others, 2021 (5) AIR Bom R 163, and the order dated 2nd March, 2022, passed in a batch of writ petitions being W.P. No. 5069 of 2019 Kashinath Sopan Istalkar vs. The Union of India and others. The latter order is based on the judgment and order passed in Bhagoji Nathaji Maind (supra).
4. It is claimed on behalf of the petitioners that initially the road was a village road which was subsequently designated as a District Road followed by a State High way and then a National Highway presently under the management of the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously urged that initially the road which was only a village road, has been extended and widened from time to time, without the authorities taking any steps for acquisition of their lands, which is in breach of their constitutional right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, which according to the learned counsel is impermissible.
5. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4, 6 and 7 submits that the road was constructed by the State Public Works Department (PWD) and has been handed over to the National Highways Authority of India. However, according to learned counsel there is no extension or widening undertaken by the NHAI.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners have tendered a copy of the letter dated 2nd March, 2019 from the office of Sub Divisional Officer, Kinwat, Dist. Nanded, in order to submit that a joint measurement was proposed and the Deputy Superintendent of Land Record (DILR ) Kinwat, was to conduct a joint measurement, after the acquiring body deposits the necessary fees for holding such joint measurement.
7. ...
8. The case made out by the petitioners is in respect of widening of road which is National Highway bearing No. 161A from Bhokar- Himayatnagar - Sarkhani - Kinwat - Mahur - Arni, without necessary acquisition of their lands. We find that this Court in the order dated 2nd March, 2022 in a batch of writ petitions bearing W.P. No. 5069 of 2019 and others,has found that the petitions involve "a host of disputed factors". However, ksk/ 2/4 32+34 only on account of the fact that a coordinate Bench of this court in the earlier W.P. No. 5069 of 2019 and connected matters, has taken recourse of directing a joint measurement that we propose to follow the same course.
9. A Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 4022 of 2019 Pandurang Sakharam Nikam and others vs. The State of Maharashtra and others had held in para. 13 and 14 thus :-
"13. In this backdrop, upon perusal of the record, we find that the short controversy regarding the exact width of the subject road, is purely factual dispute. Nothing is on record to establish with any amount of exactitude, the actual width of the subject road. This question of fact cannot be satisfactorily resolved on the basis of the documents available on record. The substratum of the matter is the exact extent of the width of the subject road and whether the respondents can undertake the construction/upgradation of the said road without acquiring the lands of the petitioners. It is trite that no person can be deprived of his property except by following due procedure established by law. Therefore, in case, the respondent authorities arrive at the conclusion that the lands of the petitioners are affected, they must forthwith take up acquisition proceedings as per the law.
14. In the circumstances, to resolve the issue of the exact width of the subject road, we consider it appropriate to direct the respondent authorities to take effective steps to carry out a joint measurement of the subject road at the concerned villages through appropriate authority in presence of the both the sides and under the supervision of the Collectors of Osmanabad and Solapur districts after following due procedure of law as expeditiously as possible and preferably within two months. It is also ordered that in case, after the measurement it is found that the lands of the petitioners are affected by the proposed work, the respondent authorities shall commence the process of acquisition immediately."
In such circumstances, we dispose off these writ petitions in terms of para.14 as above, directing the acquiring body to bear the fees for measurement of the road since widening of road is said to be almost complete.
ksk/ 3/432+34
10. We make it clear that the petitioners would participate in the joint measurement alongwith their land records/revenue record for assisting the authority in the matter of conduction of such joint measurement. We make it clear that after the joint measurement of the said land, if there is any dispute or if the finding of joint measurement is not acceptable to the petitioners, the petitioners would be at liberty to take recourse to the appropriate remedy as may be available in law, before the Civil Court, for getting their rights adjudicated, and if so advised."
3. In view of the above, Writ Petition No. 10872 of 2019 is disposed of by directing joint measurement. Acquiring body to bear the fees for measurement of the road since widening of the road is said to be almost complete.
4. We make it clear that the petitioner would participate in the joint measurement along with his land records/revenue record for assisting the authority in the matter of conduction of such joint measurement. We make it clear that after the joint measurement of the said land, if there is any dispute or if the finding of joint measurement is not acceptable to the petitioner, the petitioner would be at liberty to take recourse to the appropriate remedy as may be available in law, before the Civil Court, for getting his rights adjudicated, and if so advised.
5. In Writ Petition No. 2458 of 2021, in view of the above directions, the order passed by this Court that no road construction be made in the land of the petitioners, is hereby vacated. Writ Petition No. 2458 of 2021 is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach this Court after joint measurement is carried out in case their grievance still subsists.
[VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.] [NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.] ksk/ 4/4