JAIPAL KISAN GADE AND ORS v. THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BEED AND ORS

921 WP 5054 OF 2026IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABAD921 WRIT PETITION NO. 5054 OF 2026JAIPAL KISAN GADE AND ORSVERSUSTHE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL BEED AND ORS...Mr. A. B. Kale, Advocate for the PetitionersMr. R. S. Wani, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 to 5…CORAM:SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI AND AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.DATE:06.05.2026PER COURT :-.Heard learned Advocate for the petitioners and learned AGPwaives notice for respondent Nos.2 to 5. 2.The learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that landbearing Survey No.68, admeasuring 25,200 sq. meters, situated at AdarshNagar, Beed originally belonged to one Mr. Mangesh Rao RameshraoTendulkar. It was converted from agricultural to non-agricultural usespecifically for residential purpose under the orders of the Collector, Beeddated 18.01.1983. A revised residential layout plan of the said N.A. plot wasstated to have been approved by the Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Beed, on ( 2 ) 921 WP 5054 OF 202604.04.2022. The said land was then divided into 66 residential plots andseveral co-operative housing societies have been established. The petitionerscontend that respondent No.7 – Dr. Shriram Baglane had made an applicationto respondent No.1 seeking permission to construct “BAGLANE COMPLEX”vide application dated 08.01.2024. That application was for commercialconstruction. Respondent No.8 – Dr. Dnyaneshwar Ram Rohe had then madean application to respondent No.1 seeking permission for construction of“DR. ROHE HOSPITAL BUILDING” on 08.08.2024. Respondent No.1 grantedpermission on 12.01.2024 to respondent No.7 and on 03.10.2024 torespondent No.8. The sanctioned building plans revealed that BaglaneComplex has shops and offices on all floors whereas respondent No.8 intendsto erect a multi-speciality hospital. Learned Advocate for the petitionerssubmits that these permissions granted to respondent Nos.7 and 8 are inviolation of the Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations(UDCPR), 2020, the Maharashtra Fire Prevention and Life Safety MeasuresAct, 2006, the Maharashtra Nursing Homes Registration Act, 1949 and theClinical Establishments (Central Government) Rules, 2012. The petitionershad made several representations to the respondent-authorities. However, noconcrete action has been taken. When complaint was made on 21.02.2025,after persuasion, notices appear to have been issued under Section 54 of the ( 3 ) 921 WP 5054 OF 2026M.R.T.P. Act on 13.11.2025 and 22.11.2025 for stopping the work of respectiverespondent Nos.7 and 8. However, thereafter no action has been taken. Hesubmits that the photographs would show that huge buildings for commercialpurpose would be coming up which is in violation of the rules. Again afterpersuasion, respondent No.1 has issued notices under Section 54 of theM.R.T.P. Act once again on 19.01.2026 separately to respondent Nos.7 and 8,but again the construction has not been stopped. Some of the petitioners haveadjacent plots and the plans that have been sanctioned in favour ofrespondent Nos.7 and 8 would show that the required open space has notbeen left in between the two plots though a condition has been imposed in theconstruction permission that the construction should be as per UDCPR, yetrespondent No.1 itself has not followed those rules while granting thepermission. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.3.Learned Advocate for the petitioners relies on the observationsfrom R. K. Mittal and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. in Civil Appeal No.6962 of2005 along with companion matters decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Courton 5th December 2011, wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme court has prohibited theerection of hospital in residential area. He also relies on Loganathan vs. Stateof Tamilnadu and Ors. in Miscellaneous Application Diary No(s).17103 of ( 4 ) 921 WP 5054 OF 20262006 in SLP (C) Nos.8044-8045 of 2025 decided on 25.03.2026, wherein alsothe Hon’ble Apex Court has taken note of the fact that, in residential coloniesthe plots are converted into commercial areas by unauthorized use ofresidential buildings and lands. Such practices are not only contrary to lawand public interest, but also cause significant inconvenience and prejudice tobona fide residents, who have invested substantial resources in purchasingproperty and constructing their houses. The environmental and civilconsequences of such misuse of by unscrupulous elements of society areequally serious and have far-reaching implications.4. Here, it is to be noted that both the orders on which thepetitioners are relying are in the special leave petition. Of course, theobservations are binding on this Court, but the petitioners have come beforethis Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Anotherfact to be noted is that from the documents which have been produced, it canbe seen that the layout of the plot was sanctioned on 04.04.2022 and itappears that the applications and the photographs which were given byrespondent Nos.7 and 8 are dated 05.01.2024. The building permissions havebeen granted on 12.01.2024 and 03.10.2024. That means, in fact, on12.01.2024 commencement certificate was issued for respondent No.7 and for ( 5 ) 921 WP 5054 OF 2026respondent No.8 it was issued on 03.10.2024. Thereafter, the complaintapplication placed on record by the petitioners is dated 21.02.2025, which canbe seen to be after one year. As regards respondent No.7 is concerned, naturally the building work would have been started by that time. Thepetitioners want to protect their civil rights. It is not only in respect of theirplots but also in respect of the use of the public roads and public placesaround the area, thereby stating that though respondent Nos.7 and 8 aremaking construction on their plots, yet the permission that has been granted isstated to be contrary to or in violation of the provisions of the M.R.T.P. Act aswell as UDCPR. The petitioners could have approached the Civil Court forinjunction and thereby the further work could have been stopped. Thepetitioners have an equally efficacious remedy available to them at Beed itself, yet the petitioners have now come to this Court by filing this Writ Petition on30.03.2026.[5.When asked about all these questions, learned Advocate for thepetitioners submits that the petitioners are now, upon instructions, restrictingtheir claim to prayer clause “F” which runs thus :“F. To issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, thereby directing Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4,5 and 6 to decide the representations/complaints filed by the ( 6 ) 921 WP 5054 OF 2026petitioners dated 21.02.2025, 04.09.2025, 19.09.2025,25.11.2025, 17.12.2025 and 26.11.2025 in accordance withlaw and within a time-bound period.”We, therefore, call upon the learned AGP to take instructions from respondentNo.2 – District Collector, Beed, respondent No.4 – Deputy Director of Townplanning and Valuation Department, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Division andrespondent No.5 – the District Civil Surgeon, Beed, in respect of therepresentations dated 21.02.2025, 04.09.2025 and 19.09.2025. The learnedAGP, upon instructions of respondent Nos.2, 4 and 5 submits that they woulddecide these representations within a period of four weeks from today. Thesaid statement is taken as undertaking. 6.Though at the stage, we had not issued notice to respondent No.1– Municipal Council through its Chief Officer and respondent No.6 – the ChiefFire Officer, Municipal Council, Beed, certainly we are of the opinion thatwhen the representations have been made, they should take decisions onthose representations/grievances within a reasonable time and therefore, while disposing of the writ petition, we are giving directions to them also todecide the representation before them i.e. dated 16.12.2025, 26.11.2025,within four weeks from today. ( 7 ) 921 WP 5054 OF 20267.Since the petitioners have restricted the petition to prayer clause“F” only, we are of the opinion that there is no necessity to issue notice torespondent Nos.7 and 8 also.8.The writ petition thus stands disposed of with directions torespondent Nos.1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 to decide the above referred representationsof the petitioners within a period of four weeks from today.9.These directions are to the authorities and they will not come inthe way of pursuing the right of the petitioners, if any, to file appropriateproceedings before the appropriate authority. ( AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. ) ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, J. )PRW