Bombay High Court

BHOSALE HOMES THR ITS PARTNERversusCITY AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND ORS

Decided: 23 April 2026
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: A S GADKARI KAMAL KHATA

Holding

The review petition is dismissed as there is no error in the earlier judgment and the land title dispute must be decided by a civil court.

Summary

The petitioner, M/s. Bhosale Homes, challenged a Stop Work Notice issued by CIDCO, arguing that the circular underpinning the notice was not retrospective. CIDCO contended the notice was based on a 2012 letter indicating the petitioner was not the landowner. The High Court had earlier held that the dispute over title required adjudication by a civil court, not by its writ jurisdiction under Article 226, and dismissed the original writ petition. The petitioner filed a review petition under Order XLVII of the CPC, seeking to overturn that decision. The Court examined the record, found no apparent error in the earlier judgment, and concluded the review petition lacked merit. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed, leaving the original order intact.

Issues considered

The Stop Work Notice could be applied retrospectively to the petitioner’s construction permission.
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226 to adjudicate a land title dispute.
Whether the review petition under Order XLVII of the CPC is maintainable.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order XLVII
Constitution of India — s. Article 226

Subjects

Stop Work Notice
land title dispute
jurisdiction
Article 226
review petition
CPC Order XLVII
CIDCO

Judgment

DTG                                                          13-ii- Rpw-66-2026.doc



                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                       REVIEW PETITION NO. 66 OF 2026
                                    IN
                       WRIT PETITION NO. 4435 OF 2022


M/s. Bhosale Homes                                       … Petitioner
         V/s.
City And Industrial Development Corporation
of Maharashtra Ltd. & Ors.                               … Respondents
                   _______________________________________

Mr. Niketan Nakhawa a/w Mr. Pramod Purav for Petitioner.

Mr. G.S. Hegde, senior counsel a/w Ms. P.M. Bhansali for Respondent-CIDCO.

Ms. M.P. Thakur, A.G.P. for Respondent-State.
                _______________________________________

                           CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND
                                   KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
                           DATE  : 23rd April 2026
P.C. :

1)              By this review Petition filed under Order XLVII of the Code of

Civil Procedure, the Petitioner is seeking review of Judgment dated 20 th

March 2025.

2)              Heard Mr. Nakhawa, learned Advocate for review Petitioner, Mr.

Hegde, learned Senior Advocate for Respondent-CIDCO and learned APP Ms.

Thakur, for Respondent-State. Perused record.

3)              Learned Advocate for the review Petitioner submitted that, the

Stop Work Notice was dated 31 st August 2016. However, the Circular issued
                                                                                      1/3
DTG                                                        13-ii- Rpw-66-2026.doc



by the CIDCO is 12th April 2018, under which the said Stop Work Notice is

issued. He submitted that, the said Circular has no retrospective application

for issuance of Stop Work Notice and reject the permission to construct on

the suit land. He therefore requested this Court to review the said Judgment

dated 20th March 2025 and restore the Petition to file.

4)          Mr. Hegde, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent-

CIDCO opposed the Petition. He submitted that, the Stop Work Notice is

issued on the basis of communication/letter dated 9 th November 2012

received from the Respondent No.6 informing the CIDCO that, the Petitioner

is not the owner of the suit land and it is Sir Mohammed Haji Yusuf Trust,

who owns the said land. He submitted that, there is no merit in the review

Petition and it may be dismissed.

5)          Perusal of Judgment under review indicates that, there is a

serious dispute about the ownership of the suit land. It is on the basis of

communication / letter dated 9 th November 2012 received from the District

Collector, Raigad, that CIDCO initiated steps to issue Stop Work Notice dated

31st August 2016.

5.1)        In the Judgment under review, in para No. 8, we have

categorically held that, this would be a case where there is a dispute with

regard to the title of the land, of which rights will have to be adjudicated

before the jurisdictional civil Court and cannot be adjudicated in our writ

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, we

                                                                                    2/3
DTG                                                         13-ii- Rpw-66-2026.doc



have dismissed the said Petition by granting liberty to the Petitioner to avail

the remedy before the Civil Court, if so advised.

6)          Perusal of record indicates that, the material which was placed

before us has been duly considered while delivering Judgment dated 20 th

March 2025. We find that, there is no error apparent on the face of record to

review the Judgment dated 20th March 2025.

7)          According to us, present Petition has no merits and is

accordingly dismissed.



      ( KAMAL KHATA, J. )                   ( A.S. GADKARI, J. )




                                                                                     3/3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…