Bombay High Court
ARISHA DANISH AHMED SHAFI AND ORSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petition is dismissed as the building requires evacuation, the petitioners lack bona fides, and the development agreement binding all members cannot be frustrated by a subset of members.
Summary
The petitioners, members of Chandresh Terrace Co‑operative Housing Society, challenged a notice declaring their building dangerous and ordering its demolition, seeking to halt the redevelopment planned by a developer. They relied on a structural audit report classifying the building as requiring major repairs and expressed willingness to vacate, but objected to the redevelopment agreement with the developer. The respondents submitted evidence that the building was in a precarious condition and that a development agreement, binding on all society members, required demolition and reconstruction. The court found the building indeed dilapidated, noted the petitioners' lack of bona fides for not impleading the society, and held that the redevelopment agreement could not be frustrated by a subset of members. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition and clarified that the respondents would not be liable for any collapse before evacuation. The petitioners were held solely responsible for any costs, risks, and consequences arising from the building’s condition.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners can obtain relief to restrain demolition of a building declared dangerous under a municipal notice.
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the co‑operative society, a party to the development agreement, is not impleaded.
- Whether the respondents can be held liable for any collapse of the building prior to evacuation.
Subjects
- building demolition
- structural safety
- development agreement
- writ petition
- bona fides
- co‑operative housing society
- evacuation
- liability
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.10075 OF 2026
Arisha Danish Ahmed Shafi & Ors. .. Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra,
Through Urban Development Department & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. Shaikh Mohsin Mohd. Umar, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. Rohit Sakhadeo, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 to 6.
Mr. Devendra Singh with Mr. Amitesh Singh, Advocates for Respondent
No.7.
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, ACJ. &
GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.
DATE : 6th August, 2026.
P.C. :
1. The Petitioners are some of the members of Chandresh
Terrace Co-operative Housing Society Limited, that is due for
redevelopment. The Petitioners have filed this Petition to challenge the
notice dated 29th July, 2026 issued by Respondent No.2 declaring the
building as dangerous and proposing it’s demolition on 30th July, 2026.
2. Mr. Umar, learned counsel for the Petitioner relies upon a
WP-10075-2026 Dixit
Structural Audit Report dated 20th July, 2026, obtained by the Petitioners
which states that the building requires immediate repair so as to avoid
any untoward incident. The Report classifies the building as ‘C2A - To
be Evacuated and/or partial Demolition requiring major structural
repairs’. He submits that the Petitioners are willing to vacate the
premises so that structural repairs can be carried out. The Petitioners’
principal objection is, however, to the redevelopment to be carried out
by Respondent No. 7. Several other arguments in relation to inter se
disputes between the members of the Society are also advanced, which
we are not concerned with in this Petition.
3. Mr. Sakhadeo, learned counsel on behalf of Respondent
Nos.2 to 6 tenders a compilation of documents containing 11 pages
which is taken on record and marked ‘X’ for identification. He submits
that the building is in a precarious condition and relies upon the
photographs annexed by the Petitioners at pages 242 to 248 of the
Petition. He further submits that the Society has appointed a Structural
Audit Consultant, who in it’s report has classified this building as ‘C1’
category. Accordingly, he submits that the building ought to be vacated
forthwith and the officials of the Corporation ought not to be held
WP-10075-2026 Dixit
responsible or liable for any untoward incident that may occur between
today and the time the members vacate their premises.
4. Mr. Singh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of
Respondent No.7, Developer, submits that the Society has executed a
Development Agreement on 30th April, 2025 under which, the building
has to be demolished and a new building shall be built on the said
property. The Petitioners are obstructing the said process. Respondent
No. 7 is willing to execute the Permanent Alternate Accommodation
Agreement (PAAA) with the Petitioners on the same terms and
conditions, as is executed with the other members of the Society.
5. We have perused the record and find that the building is in a
dilapidated condition and admittedly requires evacuation, even if it is
only for repairs. The Petitioners are themselves ready to evacuate the
building for this purpose. In such a situation, there is no question of
entertaining the present Petition.
6. We also find that the Petitioners are lacking in bona fides.
This Petition is filed by a group of members of the Society without
impleading the Society as a party to this proceeding. The Society has
WP-10075-2026 Dixit
executed a Development Agreement with Respondent No.7 and the said
Agreement is binding on all the Petitioners. Hence, it appears to us that
the Petitioners have deliberately not impleaded the Society as a party
Respondent in this Petition. The present Writ Petition is nothing, but, an
attempt by a small group of members to frustrate the redevelopment
process under the Development Agreement. This cannot be permitted as
the Development Agreement binds the Petitioners.
7. Accordingly, Writ Petition No.10075 of 2026 is dismissed.
It is clarified that the Respondents shall not be liable for any untoward
incident that may occur if the buildings unfortunately collapse prior to
the evacuation and it would be the Petitioners who shall solely held
responsible for all costs, risks and consequences.
[ GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. ] [ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ]
Digitally
signed by
SNEHA
SNEHA ABHAY
ABHAY DIXIT
WP-10075-2026 Dixit
Date:
DIXIT 2026.08.11
17:19:02
+0530
Checking your session…