Bombay High Court

JITENDRA CHAMPALAL SANGHVI AND ORSversusMAHARASHTRA HOUSING AND AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS

Decided: 17 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The Court held that the lottery is not binding on the petitioners if more shops are constructed, and they may agitate their claims for such allotments.

Summary

The petitioners, led by Jitendra Champalal Sanghvi, feared that the housing project under MHADA might be transferred to another developer, resulting in revised plans that could increase the number of ground‑floor shops. They contended that such a change would render the lottery conducted by the current developer for allotting four shops non‑binding on them. The petition sought clarification under Section 95A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, that the lottery would not bind the petitioners and that they could assert claims for any additional shops constructed. The Court noted a prior order in WP No.4564 of 2022 and expressed reluctance to entertain the petition without such clarification. Accordingly, the Court directed that the petitioners’ apprehensions be addressed and that the lottery not be deemed binding if more shops are built. The writ petitions were thereafter disposed subject to the stated clarification.

Issues considered

Whether the lottery conducted by the developer for allotting ground‑floor shops is binding on the petitioners if the project is handed over to another developer.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to claim allotment of any additional shops that may be constructed under revised plans.

Legislation cited

Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 — s. 95A

Subjects

Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act
Section 95A
lottery allotment
developer handover
shop allocation
writ petition
civil appellate jurisdiction

Judgment

2026:BHC-AS:38130

                                                                       902 wp 12307 of 2026.doc

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                 WRIT PETITION NO.12307 OF 2026

            Jitendra Champalal Sanghvi and Ors.          ...  Petitioners
                  versus
            Maharashtra Housing and Area Development
            Authority and Ors.                           …    Respondents
                                             WITH
                            ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                               WRIT PETITION (L) NO.32117 OF 2026

            M/s. Mukesh Steel through
            Maniben Raghnathmal Chandan                          …   Petitioner
                  versus
            State of Maharashtra and Ors.                        …   Respondents

            WP No.12307 of 2026
            Mr. R.D.Soni with Ms. Uma Sharma, Mr. Karl Vatcha i/by Mr. Sachin
            Chowdhari, for Petitioners.
            Mr. Vishal Kanade with Mr. Paresh Shah, Mr. Rubin Vakil, Mrs. Chhaya Parab,
            Ms. Meghna Mehta i/by M/s. Shah and Sanghavi, for Respondent No.3.
            Ms. Jaya Bagwe, for MHADA.
            WP(L) No.32117 of 2026
            Mr. Piyush M. Shah with Mr. Deep Madnani, for Petitioner.
            Ms. Nazia Sheikh, AGP for State.
            Mr. Vishal Kanade with Mr. Paresh Shah, Mr. Rubin Vakil, Mrs. Chhaya Parab,
            Ms. Meghna Mehta i/by M/s. Shah and Sanghavi for Respondent Nos.6 to 9.
            Ms. Jaya Bagwe, for MHADA.

                                CORAM:      N.J.JAMADAR, J.

                                DATE :      17 SEPTEMBER 2026

            P.C.

            1.      Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

            2.      Having regard to the nature of the impugned order passed under

            Section 95A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976,


            SSP                                                                   1/2
                                                                                    902 wp 12307 of 2026.doc

                      when this Court expressed its disinclination to entertain the Petition,

                      especially in the light of an earlier order passed by the Division Bench of this

                      Court on 10 January 2023 in WP No.4564 of 2022, Mr. Soni, learned Counsel

                      for the Petitioner prays for the directions in terms of prayer clause (d).

                      3.       The substance of the apprehension of the Petitioners is that the project

                      is likely to be handed over to another developer, and, in that eventuality, there

                      is a distinct possibility that the plans may be revised and more shops may be

                      provided on the ground floor.

                      4.       If such an eventuality occurs, the lottery conducted by the Developer –

                      Respondent No.3 for allotment of the four shops will not be binding on the

                      Petitioners, and the Petitioners shall be entitled to agitate their claims for

                      allotment of the shops on the ground floor in case more shops are

                      constructed on the ground floor.

                      5.       Subject to the aforesaid clarification, the Writ Petitions stand disposed.




                                                                            ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )




                      SSP                                                                    2/2



Signed by: S.S.Phadke
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 18/09/2026 18:26:49

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.