'Rule Of Law, Not Bulldozer Justice': Bombay HC Cautions Against Blanket Action In Khidrapur Temple Encroachment Case

The Bombay High Court recently cautioned against adopting a blanket approach in the Khidrapur Temple encroachment case, observing that it "believes in the Rule of Law and not bulldozer justice." The Court emphasised that action against the identified structures must be taken in accordance with the statutory procedure under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958.

Hearing a public interest litigation concerning the conservation of the ASI-protected Kopeshwar Temple (Kolhapur district) and alleged encroachments within its prohibited and regulated zones, a Division Bench of Justices Milind N. Jadhav and Nandesh S. Deshpande said that authorities cannot resort to an omnibus demolition exercise merely because structures have been identified during surveys.

Instead, the Bench directed the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI), which it prima facie held to be the competent planning authority under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, to examine every case individually and proceed only in accordance with the statutory framework.

"We make it clear that this Court believes in the Rule of Law and not bulldozer justice so as to instill any fear in the minds of the citizenry at large" the division bench said.

Court rejects blanket demolition approach

The PIL, filed by Prashant Vasantrao Salunke, initially sought urgent intervention to protect the deteriorating condition of the historic Kopeshwar Temple. During the proceedings, the issue expanded to include alleged encroachments within the monument's prohibited 100-metre zone and regulated 200-metre buffer area, where ASI surveys identified 71 structures against which action was proposed.

The Bench observed that while unauthorised constructions, if any, must certainly be dealt with, the law itself provides a detailed mechanism under Sections 20A to 20D of the 1958 Act. Therefore, authorities cannot treat all structures alike or undertake a sweeping demolition drive.

The Court noted that the legislation envisages applications, scrutiny by the competent authority, statutory timelines and individual consideration before any decision affecting a structure is taken.

It observed that the provisions are ‘unambiguous’ and confer planning authority-like powers upon the ASI for regulating repairs, construction and reconstruction in protected areas.

Accordingly, the Bench directed the ASI to proceed "strictly in accordance with law" in respect of every one of the identified structures.

"Do not put all structures in one basket"

During the hearing, ASI's counsel submitted that show-cause notices had already been issued to the 71 identified structures. The Court, however, stressed that each structure must be evaluated independently.

It said the competent authority should not "put all of the structures in one basket and treat them omnibusly," but instead determine every case on the basis of documentary evidence relating to the existence and status of each structure.

The Bench noted that this was not an ordinary case of unauthorised construction but one where villagers claim that many of the structures have existed since ancient times.

Subsequently, counsel appearing for 79 structure owners sought to intervene, arguing that the villagers feared coercive demolition without due process.

The Court acknowledged those concerns, observing that "the Rule of Law will have to be followed strictly" before branding every structure as unauthorised, since "the extent of unauthorised construction needs adjudication on a case-to-case basis."

Collector cannot replace ASI's statutory role

The Bench also rejected the ASI's submission that the Collector should invoke powers under Section 53 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act to proceed against the alleged encroachments.

Holding that the protected and regulated areas fall under the statutory regime of the Ancient Monuments Act, the Court said the ASI itself is the competent planning authority and that it "cannot fathom having two Planning Authorities."

While clarifying that the State machinery would provide all necessary assistance, the Bench ruled that the Collector cannot substitute the statutory powers specifically vested in the ASI.

Focus remains conservation of heritage temple

Although the dispute has now expanded to include the rights of occupants of structures surrounding the temple, the Court repeatedly underscored that the principal object of the PIL continues to be preservation of the protected monument.

It noted that all stakeholders, including the State Government, ASI, Gram Panchayat and local authorities, must cooperate rather than adopt adversarial positions.

The Bench appealed to all parties not to take the law into their own hands and observed that anyone requiring clarification of its directions is free to approach the Court.

"The predominant purpose is undoubtedly conservation and resurrection of the heritage temple," it said, while adding that regulation of surrounding structures would also be monitored in accordance with law after the competent authority performs its statutory functions.

Court seeks transparency on ₹44 crore restoration plan

Apart from the encroachment issue, the High Court also scrutinized the State's restoration plan.

The State informed the Bench that ₹44 crore had already been sanctioned under a 2022 Government Resolution for preservation and conservation of the temple.

However, the Court expressed dissatisfaction with the affidavit placed before it, particularly regarding the proposed expenditure of ₹10.25 crore for repairs to the compound wall and ₹12.24 crore for construction of a new river ghat.

Observing that the affidavit lacked sufficient particulars to justify such "humongous expenditure," the Bench directed the Collector to file an additional affidavit transparently explaining the scope of work, estimates, timelines and the process followed in awarding the works.

The Court cautioned that if it remains dissatisfied with the explanation, it may consider appointing a monitoring committee after a joint inspection of the works.

Finally, the Bench directed both the ASI and the Collector to file comprehensive affidavits on the structural audit of the temple and all proposed expenditure, while taking immediate steps to preserve the heritage structure. The matter has been posted for further hearing on August 3, 2026.

Case title ~ Prashant Vasantrao Salunke and others v Union Of India Thr. Secretary Ministry Of Culture And Ors.