53-WP-8944-2025.odt Pallavi IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8944 OF 2025 Mrs. Meera Gopal Bhoir and Ors. ...Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents ... Mr. Mahesh Joshi a/w Ruchika Gurav for the Petitioners. Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, GP a/w Mrs. Apurva Thipsay, ‘B’ Panel for Respondent – State. Mr. Sandeep Dilip Shinde a/w Riddhi Gurav for the Respondent No.2. ... CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J. DATE : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C.: 1. We have heard Mr. Mahesh Joshi, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mrs. Neha Bhide, learned GP for Respondent – State and Mr. Sandeep Shinde learned counsel for Respondent No.2. 2. The instant Writ Petition is preferred for a direction to the Respondents to take stern legal action of removal and demolition of the illegal construction i.e. constructions of building known as Navnath Plaza of Ground + 8 floors with 2 wings structure on plot of land bearing Survey number 51 hissa number 1/4 Ayre gaon Dombivli East, Taluka Kalyan District Thane. 1 PALLAVI MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR Digitally signed by PALLAVI MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR Date: 2026.09.23 13:10:43 +0530 53-WP-8944-2025.odt 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the Respondents raises an objection qua the maintainability of the instant proceeding on the premise that in the similar facts and circumstances, the Petitioner has made a complaint No.LA/COM/956-958/2023 before the Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta. This is on the premise that the mother was owner of property bearing Survey No.51/01/04, admeasuring 2050 sq.ft, with the grievance that without taking the permission of the complainant, third party viz. Builder - Manish Kedar has constructed the building on the said property. 4. The learned Lokayukta has proceeded to observe that preliminary dispute is between the complainant and the third party. They have an alternative remedy of filing a Civil Suit before the Civil Court. In this backdrop, the precise objection has been raised qua the civil dispute by the Respondents. As rightly indicated, the Petitioner still has the alternative remedy to press the relief before the competent Civil Court. An objection has also been raised qua the maintainability of the instant proceeding, for non-joinder of the parties. 5. At this stage, we find that the complaint has already been entertained and the proceedings qua the criminality if any attached to the complaint is filed by the Petitioner. We are not inclined to advert on the merits of the case. However, as the learned Lokayukta 2 53-WP-8944-2025.odt has already observed that dispute is purely of civil in nature qua the private party, we are not inclined to take different view. 6. In the facts and circumstances, we leave it open to the Petitioner to press the relief before of competent Civil Court in accordance with law. 7. The Writ Petition is Disposed of in the above terms, without adverting to the merits of the matter. [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE] 3