Bombay High Court

AMIR MOHAMMAD SABIR MOMINversusBHIWANDI-NIZAMPUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THR ITS COMMISSIONER AND ORS

Decided: 13 January 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: RAVINDRA V GHUGE ABHAY MANTRI

Holding

The writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn, allowing the petitioner to re‑file if his share is later crystallized.

Summary

The petitioner, Amir Mohommad Sabir Momin, claimed a share in a property allegedly encroached upon, but his entitlement was not yet crystallized due to a dispute among the legal heirs of the predecessor-in-title. He sought the removal of illegal structures and recovery of possession. The Court observed that until the petitioner’s share is legally established, he may have standing to pursue such relief. Accordingly, the Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition while keeping all contentions open for future relief if his rights become crystallized. The petition was therefore disposed of as withdrawn.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate procedural step when a petitioner’s proprietary rights are not yet crystallized in a dispute over alleged encroachment?

Subjects

property dispute
encroachment
writ petition
withdrawal
civil appellate jurisdiction
municipal corporation

Judgment

TRUPTI
SADANAND
BAMNE
Digitally signed by
TRUPTI SADANAND                                                                       16-wp-11188-2025.odt
BAMNE
Date: 2026.01.14
17:43:58 +0530




                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                           WRIT PETITION NO. 11188 OF 2025
                      Mr.Amir Mohommad Sabir Momin                              … Petitioner
                           versus
                      Bhiwandi Nizampur Municipal Corporation & Ors.            … Respondents
                                                       ...
                      Mr.Sangharsh Apte with Mr.Dinesh R. Sonawane i/b. Mr.Rahul Upadhyay
                      for the Petitioner.
                      None for the Respondents.
                                                       ...

                                                  CORAM :     RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
                                                              ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

                                                  DATE    :   JANUARY 13, 2026

                      P.C:

                      1.             The Petitioner’s share in the property, on which there is a

                      purported encroachment, is yet to be crystallized, keeping in view the

                      dispute between the legal heirs of the predecessor-in-title. If the

                      Petitioner’s rights are crystallized in the said dispute, he may have a voice

                      for seeking removal of illegal structures/encroachments and recovery of

                      possession.



                      2.             In view of the above, the Petitioner is permitted to withdraw

                      the Petition, keeping all contentions open. In the event the Petitioner’s

                      rights are crystallized to the extent of his share, he may avail of a remedy

                      as is permissible in law.


                      Trupti                                                                          ...1
                                                               16-wp-11188-2025.odt




3.          With the above observations, this Writ Petition is disposed off

as withdrawn, on instructions.




(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)                (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)




Trupti                                                                         ...2

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…