Government may remove unauthorised gates on its access road without issuing a Section 53 notice.

The Petitioner-Society claimed title to a larger parcel of land granted by the Collector in 1959.

A portion of the adjoining land was Government land reserved for public/open-space purposes.

Since the Society’s plot was initially landlocked, the Municipal Corporation permitted it to use a temporary 30-foot access through the Government land, subject to the condition that the access would be discontinued once the sanctioned 44-foot Development Plan road was constructed.

The Development Plan road was subsequently constructed and became operational.

The Society nevertheless continued using the Government-land access and installed gates at its entrance, thereby restricting access to the Society’s members and excluding others.

The BMC issued notices in 2025 concerning the Society’s alleged unauthorised use of the garden/open-space property, following which the Society instituted Civil Suit No. 287 of 2025 claiming title by adverse possession and seeking injunctive relief.

Thereafter, the Collector passed an order dated 17 March 2026 directing removal of the gates.

Government officers attempted to remove the gates on 23 March, 27 March and 1 April 2026 without issuing a separate notice or hearing to the Society.

The Society challenged the Collector’s order and consequential action under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, contending that the access strip formed part of its allotted property, was covered by the civil suit injunction, and could not be dealt with without proceedings under Section 53 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 (“MLRC”).

Whether the access strip and the gates formed part of the subject matter of Civil Suit No. 287 of 2025, so that the interim injunction passed in that suit applied to the Collector’s action?

Whether the access strip on which the gates were installed formed part of the land allotted to the Society in 1959, and whether the Collector was required to issue notice before directing removal of the gates?

Whether the Collector had jurisdiction to direct removal of the gates without following the procedure under Section 53 of the MLRC?

The Court applied the principles governing Government land and unauthorised obstruction of public access under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, particularly Section 53, which ordinarily requires notice, inquiry and a reasonable opportunity of being heard before eviction of a person occupying Government land.

The Court relied on Shakuntalabai w/o Shrinivas Dhoot v. State of Maharashtra, Second Appeal Nos. 118, 119, 120 and 127 of 1999, decided on 8 August 2025, for the principle that occupants of Government land cannot ordinarily be summarily dispossessed without compliance with Section 53.

However, the Court distinguished that principle where the State was not evicting the Society or terminating its access, but was merely removing an unauthorised gate obstructing access over Government land and restoring the land for use by the public.

The Court further applied the principle that permission to use Government land as an access does not confer ownership, exclusive possession, or a right to obstruct public access by erecting gates.

The Court held that the Society’s own pleadings and the prayer in Civil Suit No. 287 of 2025 showed that the suit concerned the garden/open-space property and did not include the access strip or the gates.

Consequently, the injunction in the civil suit did not restrain action concerning the access strip.

On the title issue, the Court found from the maps and the 1976–1978 Municipal communications that the access ran through Government land and had been granted only as a temporary facility until construction of the eastern Development Plan road.

Since that road had been constructed and was being used, the Society had no basis to claim exclusive possession of the temporary access.

The Court further reasoned that removal of the gates did not dispossess the Society or prevent it from using the access.

Instead, it removed the obstruction and kept the Government land open to the Society and the public.

Therefore, the action was materially different from eviction or takeover of possession requiring prior proceedings under Section 53.

Although the Collector’s observation that the access was being used “unauthorisedly” was incorrect because the access had originally been permitted by the Municipal Corporation, the direction to remove the gates was justified because the Society had converted a permitted access into an exclusive passage.

The Court nevertheless clarified that the State could not stop the Society’s access or grant exclusive use of the road to another party without following due process.

It upheld the Collector’s direction to remove the gates, holding that Section 53 of the MLRC was not attracted merely because an obstruction on Government land was being removed while the Society’s access continued.

However, the State was directed to keep the access open to the Society as well as to others and was restrained from granting exclusive use of the access to any other party.

The writ petition was accordingly partly allowed, and the Rule was made absolute in those terms.