Bombay High Court
RAJEEV JAINATH GUPTAversusTHE COMMISSIONER, BHIWANDI NIZAMPURA CITY MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The writ petition is rejected as there is no change in circumstances and the petitioner has been directed to pursue alternative remedies.
Summary
The petitioner, Rajeev Jainath Gupta, filed a writ petition challenging the earlier dismissal of his 2016 writ petition concerning his claim of co‑ownership of a property allegedly constructed illegally by his uncle. The earlier petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner could pursue other legal remedies and that there was no merit in his claim. In the present petition, the petitioner reiterated that the construction is unauthorized, but the court observed that it had already granted him liberty to seek alternative remedies and that there has been no change in circumstances. Consequently, the court found no basis to entertain the fresh petition. The writ petition was therefore rejected, leaving the petitioner to pursue other available legal avenues.
Issues considered
- The petitioner can file a fresh writ petition after the earlier dismissal
- Whether the lack of change in circumstances bars the petition
- Whether the petitioner must resort to alternative remedies
Subjects
- writ petition
- alternative remedies
- property dispute
- unauthorised construction
- jurisdiction
Judgment
Digitally signed
by ARUNA
ARUNA SANDEEP
SANDEEP TALWALKAR
TALWALKAR Date:
2026.09.30
17:28:23 +0530 28.WP13561.2023.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.13561 OF 2023
Rajeev Jainath Gupta. … Petitioner.
Versus
The Commissioner, Bhiwandi Nizampura
City Municipal Corporation And Ors. … Respondents
--------------
Mr. Prince Kumar Upadhyay a/w. Purvang Kamdar, Parth Keni,
Patrick Gomes and Mr. Gitesh Sawant i/b. Equalis Justitia,
Advocate for the Petitioner.
Ms. Pooja Malik i/b. Mr. N.R. Bubna, Advocate for Respondent
Nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Sanjay Patil, Advocate for Respondent No. 4.
Mr. P.P. Kakade, Addl. G.P. with Mr. A.A. Alaspurkar, AGP for
Respondent/State.
--------------
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : 30th SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
2. We find that the very cause for which this Petition is filed,
the earlier Writ Petition No. 8298 of 2016 filed by the Petitioner
was dismissed by the following order :
“1. The petitioner claims that he is the co-owner of
the subject property illegally constructed by his uncle.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
father of the petitioner had filed a suit for claiming his
Talwalkar 1
28.WP13561.2023.odt
share. The uncle of the petitioner has also filed a suit
challenging the notice of the Corporation wherein ad-
interim order has been passed. Learned counsel for
respondent No. 3 submitted that the status quo order is
in operation. In view of all these facts, we do not find
any merit in this petition. The petitioner may resort to
alternate remedies as available in law. Petition
disposed of.”
3. In all fairness, we must observe that the Petitioner has
annexed the aforesaid order as Exh. B to the Petition.
4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that
constructions in question is unauthorised.
5. Since this Court had already granted a liberty to resort to
alternative remedies as available in law, it is not possible for us to
entertain the present Petition considering that there are no change
in circumstances.
6. Keeping the liberty of the Petitioner to resort to
alternative remedies open, this Writ Petition is rejected.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Talwalkar 2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.