We Don't Believe In 'Bulldozer Justice': Bombay HC Lets Doctor Voluntarily Remove Road-Obstructing Hospital Portion

Observing that it does not believe in "bulldozer justice", the Bombay High Court recently permitted a Satara-based doctor to voluntarily remove the portion of his residential building-cum-hospital falling within a proposed road widening project, instead of allowing immediate coercive demolition by municipal authorities.

A Division Bench of Justice Milind N. Jadhav and Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande passed the directions while hearing a petition filed by Dr Dilip Malharrao Patil challenging notices issued by the Satara Municipal Council in relation to a proposed 15-metre Development Plan (DP) road affecting part of his property.

During the hearing on July 2, the Bench (sitting at Kolhapur Circuit Bench) made it clear that although the portion of the petitioner's structure falling within the proposed road alignment would have to be removed, it was "not in favour of any 'bulldozer justice'" and preferred to first allow the petitioner to undertake the demolition himself.

"We are not in favour of any 'bulldozer justice' in our Court...Therefore, we are inclined to pass appropriate directions to initially enable the Petitioner to remove the affected structure to the extent possible, and only if the Petitioner fails to cooperate, in that case we will pass coercive orders" the Court observed.

The Court noted that the petitioner was running a hospital from the premises and observed that permitting him to remove the affected portion himself would minimise the possibility of unnecessary damage to the remaining structure.

It, however, clarified that the petitioner would have to hand over the land required for road widening without waiting for the compensation process to conclude.

The Bench added that the petitioner's statutory remedies for compensation, whether through private negotiations, Transferable Development Rights (TDR) or acquisition under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, would remain unaffected.

Since the petitioner disputed the exact extent of the land falling within the proposed road line and expressed apprehension that an indiscriminate demolition could damage the rest of the building, the Court appointed Advocate Sagar Mane as Court Commissioner and Architect Mayur Gandhi as a neutral Court-appointed Architect to conduct measurements, determine the precise road alignment and identify the exact portion of the structure affected.

The Bench observed that the exercise was necessary as the Municipal Council appeared to be "in a great hurry to demolish the structure."

When the matter was taken up on July 14, the Court considered the Commissioner's report, which it described as "highly encouraging". According to the report, the proposed road alignment did not affect the petitioner's main load-bearing structure, and only a portion of the building along with a balcony required partial demolition.

Accepting the findings, the Bench directed the petitioner to remove the obstructing portion within four weeks and file an undertaking stating that he would carry out the demolition at his own volition, using his own machinery and manpower, without claiming compensation from the Municipal Council for the demolition exercise.

After completion of the work, he was directed to hand over the affected land to enable completion of the road project.

The Court simultaneously protected the petitioner from coercive action, directing that the Satara Municipal Council should not forcibly demolish the structure so long as the petitioner complied with the directions.

Municipal officers were asked to periodically inspect the site and place a status report before the Court regarding the progress of the voluntary demolition.

On the issue of compensation, the Bench accepted the petitioner's contention that he was entitled to compensation for the land being taken for the public project.

Referring to Section 126 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, it directed the Municipal Council to immediately initiate negotiations with the petitioner for acquisition through mutual agreement.

If the parties failed to reach a settlement, the Court said it would consider issuing further directions for acquisition strictly in accordance with law, while keeping all the petitioner's rights and contentions regarding the extent of the land acquired open.

Earlier, while issuing notice in the matter, the High Court had observed that widening the road served a "dominant public purpose" by easing traffic congestion but had also recognised that the petitioner would have to be compensated for the land and structure required for the project.

It had accordingly restrained the Municipal Council from taking coercive demolition measures pending further consideration of the case.

Case Title: Dilip Malharrao Patil v. The State of Maharashtra Through Principal Secretary Urban Development Dept. And Ors

Date of Order: July 2, 2026

Bench: Justice Milind N. Jadhav and Justice Nandesh S. Deshpande