Bombay High Court
SHAIKH MOHAMMED IQBAL ABDUL REHMANversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROU. SEC. MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND FOREST DEPT AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petition is disposed of as the respondents have assured that appropriate demolition action will be taken.
Summary
Shaikh Mohammed Iqbal Abdul Rehman filed a writ petition alleging that Respondent No.6 carried out unauthorized construction of a building, demolishing and reconstructing a chawl without any development permission. Municipal officers inspected the site and found the lack of permission, and a partial demolition was carried out on 21 April 2026. The petitioner complained that despite demolition, Respondent No.6 rebuilt the structure and an FIR was filed. The corporation counsel assured that appropriate action, including demolition of the remaining unauthorized structures, would be taken after 30 September 2026. Relying on this assurance, the High Court disposed of the petition, directing that the action be taken expeditiously and in accordance with law.
Issues considered
- Whether the court should intervene to order immediate demolition of the unauthorized building.
- Whether the petition can be dismissed on the basis of the respondents' assurance of future action.
Subjects
- unauthorised construction
- demolition
- municipal permission
- writ petition
- public interest litigation
- building regulations
Judgment
Digitally signed
by ARUNA
ARUNA SANDEEP
SANDEEP TALWALKAR
TALWALKAR Date:
2026.09.01
18:54:14 +0530
31.WP10566.2024.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.10566 OF 2024
Shaikh Mohammed Iqbal Abdul Rehman. … Petitioner.
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents.
------------
Mr. Piyush Todkar, Advocate for Petitioner.
Ms. Chaitrali Deshmukh, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 to 5.
Mr. S.P. Kamble, AGP, for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 8 / State.
-----------
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 1st SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the there are totally
unathorised construction of buildings and another proposed
construction which is carried out by Respondent No. 6. According
to the Petitioner, the building was inspected by the Municipal
Officers when it was found that the Respondent No. 6 did not have
any development permission. The grievance of the Petitioner is
that the modus operendi of the Respondent No. 6 is to undertake
demolition and reconstruction of a chawl into ground plus 3
Talwalkar 1
31.WP10566.2024.odt
structure without any permission.
3. The learned Counsel for the Corporation submitted that
one of the building has been partly demolished on 21 st April, 2026.
The Corporation is taking action against rest of the unauthorised
buildings which are the subject matter of the Petition. It is further
submitted that even after demolition, Respondent No. 6
reconstructed the structure and hence, FIR has been filed. In view
of the circular, appropriate action for demolition would be taken. It
is taken after 30th September, 2026.
4. Considering the stand of the learned Counsel for the
Respondent Corporation on instructions, as it is assured
appropriate action would be taken against unauthorised buildings
which are subject matter of the Petition, the Writ Petition is
disposed of.
5. We expect the action to be taken expeditiously and in
accordance with law.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Talwalkar 2
Checking your session…