Bombay High Court
NUSRAT AZIZ BOBDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROU. ITS PRINCIPAL SEC. URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court stayed the Municipal Corporation's demolition order pending disposal of the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioner challenged the Municipal Corporation's attempt to force acceptance of TDR/FSI as compensation for land acquired for road widening and to demolish alleged unauthorised construction. The High Court had earlier ordered the corporation not to take coercive action. Despite that, the corporation issued a notice demanding removal of the construction within seven days. The petitioner filed an interim application seeking a stay of this demolition order. The Court held that the corporation must not act on its demolition order until the writ petition is finally decided, and it kept the earlier interim order in force. No merits of the demolition order were addressed, and the petition was scheduled for further hearing.
Issues considered
- Whether the Municipal Corporation can proceed with demolition of alleged unauthorised construction despite an earlier interim order restraining coercive action.
- Whether the corporation must obtain leave of the Court before executing its demolition order.
Subjects
- land acquisition
- TDR
- FSI
- compensation
- interim relief
- demolition
- municipal corporation
- writ petition
- stay order
Judgment
905-WP-10993-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4299 OF 2026
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10993 OF 2025
Nusrat Aziz Bobde .. Petitioner
V/S.
The State Of Maharashtra .. Respondents
Throu. Its Principal Sec. Urban
Development Dept And Ors
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 10994 OF 2025
-------------------
Digitally
signed by
VARSHA
VARSHA DEEPAK
Mr. Atharva Dandekar i/by Gautam Jain, for petitioner in
DEEPAK GAIKWAD
GAIKWAD Date:
2026.06.18
WP/10993/2025 and 10994/2025.
10:32:20
+0530
Mr. N.R. Bubna a/w Pooja Malik, for respondent No. 4/Municipal
Corporation.
Ms. P.J. Gavhane, AGP, for Respondent/State.
--------------------
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
DATE : 17TH JUNE 2026.
PC:
1. The petitioner is constrained to move this application in peculiar
circumstances.
2. It is an admitted position that in this very writ petition bearing
Writ Petition No. 10993 of 2025, a division bench of this Court (Coram:
G.S. Kulkarni and Manjusha Deshpande, JJ) had passed an order dated
21/05/2025 specifically directing the respondent- Municipal Corporation
not to take any coercive action against the petitioners.
varsha 1 of 3
905-WP-10993-2025.doc
3. The principal grievance raised in the Writ petition is that the
respondent - Municipal Corporation cannot force the petitioner to accept
TDR /FSI as compensation for the acquisition of the property of the
petitioners for the purpose of road widening.
4. As per the full bench judgment of this Court in the case of 'Shree
Vinayak Builders and Developers Vs. State of Maharashtra' (2022 SCC
online Bom 1562) and further judgments rendered by various Division
Benches, it is clear that compensation in the form of TDR/FSI, instead of
monetary compensation cannot be forced upon an owner.
5. The petition is pending consideration, wherein the respondent-
corporation has already filed its reply affidavit. The petition would be
taken up for consideration on its own merits.
6. But, in the interregnum the respondent-Municipal Corporation
chose to issue notice to the petitioner alleging unauthorised construction
in the subject property. The petitioner responded but claimed that the
entire set of documents was not available at the relevant time and hence
sought further time.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner informs this Court that
necessary applications were made to procure documents. But, by an
order recently issued on 09/06/2026, the respondent-corporation has
gone ahead to direct the removal of the unauthorised construction,
threatening that if the same is not done within a period of seven days, the
corporation through its contractor would proceed to take action of
demolition.
8. The least that was expected from the respondent-Municipal
corporation was to have appriased this Court about its proposed action
for the removal of unauthorised construction. There can be no doubt that
varsha 2 of 3
905-WP-10993-2025.doc
the respondent-Municipal corporation would be well within its powers to
proceed against unauthorised construction, but in the face of the interim
order operating since 21/08/2025, the respondent-corporation, before
passing its order, should have approached this Court seeking leave to
take action in accordance with law.
9. Prima facie, this Court has gathered an impression that the
respondent-Municipal Corporation is trying to play a fast one on this
Court, which cannot be countenanced.
10. In view of the above, the application is disposed of by directing that
in the light of the interim order dated 21/08/2025 passed by this Court
in the Writ Petition, the respondent-corporation shall not act upon the
said order dated 09/06/2026 till the disposal of Writ Petition.
11. The Writ Petition is fixed for hearing/disposal on 28th July 2026,
'High on Board'
12. The interim order dated 21/08/2025 shall continue to operate till
then.
13. Needless to say, this Court has not made any observations on the
merits of the order dated 09/06/2026. At the same time, the petitioner is
at liberty to challenge the said order by way of independent challenge, in
accordance with law.
WRIT PETITION NO. 10994 OF 2025
1. List for further consideration / hearing on 20th July 2026, High on
Board. To be taken up with Writ Petition No. 10993 of 2025.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
varsha 3 of 3
Checking your session…