Petition over partial demolition of properties in Satara due to road widening
By Lokmat Times Desk | Updated: September 20, 2025 20:50 IST2025-09-20T20:50:02+5:302025-09-20T20:50:02+5:30
Lokmat News Network Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar: The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court on Saturday issued a notice to ...

Petition over partial demolition of properties in Satara due to road widening
Lokmat News Network
Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar:
The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court on Saturday issued a notice to the Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Municipal Corporation (CSMC) in connection with a petition claiming that a portion of the petitioner’s property in Satara area would be affected due to road widening. The civic body has been directed to file its reply within three weeks.
What is the petition about?
The petition was filed by Harbhajansingh Thiara and others through Adv. Vishal Bakal Patil. According to the petition, their residential property is located in Gut No. 105, Satara locality. The Satara Grampanchayat had granted them a building permission. The 9-metre road in the area is proposed to be widened to 15 metres. On September 15, 2025, the civic body announced via loudspeaker that the affected properties would be demolished on September 18, 2025. Red markings were also painted on the affected structures. This prompted the petitioners to approach the court.
Arguments from both sides
On behalf of the petitioners, it was argued that the CSMC had initiated the action without issuing any legal notice, conducting any inquiry, giving the petitioners a chance to be heard, or following land acquisition procedures. They sought a stay on the proposed demolition.
Adv. Sambhaji Tope, representing the CSMC, submitted that the corporation does not currently plan to carry out road widening in the Satara locality. He further argued that as per a High Court ruling, the grampanchayat is not a competent authority to grant building permissions, and therefore, the petitioners’ building permission issued by the grampanchayat cannot be considered valid. Hence, he requested the court not to grant a stay. After hearing both sides, the bench issued notice to the CSMC and directed it to file a reply within three weeks.
Open in app