Bombay High Court
BADRIPRASAD S TRIVEDIversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR URBAN LAND DEVELOPMENT AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the structure was demolished, the petitioner declined the offered alternate accommodation, and therefore he may seek compensation, leading to the disposal of the petition.
Summary
Shri Badriprasad S. Trivedi filed a writ petition seeking the return of his premises, alleging that his structure was not demolished during a road‑widening project and that a small portion was handed over to a politician. The State of Maharashtra and the Municipal Corporation contended that the entire structure had been demolished and offered him alternate accommodation, as evidenced by an offer letter dated 14‑10‑2024. The petitioner rejected the alternate accommodation. The Court noted that in an earlier writ petition (No. 2717 of 2023) the petitioner himself had claimed entitlement to alternate accommodation, indicating that demolition had indeed occurred. Consequently, the Court held that the petitioner could pursue compensation instead of the alternate accommodation and disposed of the present petition. All other contentions were left open for future consideration.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner's structure was demolished in the road‑widening project
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to alternate accommodation under the municipal policy
- Whether the petitioner can claim compensation in lieu of alternate accommodation
Subjects
- road widening
- demolition
- alternate accommodation
- compensation
- municipal corporation
- writ petition
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
TRUPTI
TRUPTI SADANAND
SADANAND BAMNE
BAMNE Date:
2026.08.29
11:26:24
+0530 1 914-wp-2390-2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2390 OF 2025
Shri Badriprasad S. Trivedi ...Petitioner
versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents
……
Mr.Sandeep Mishra for the Petitioner.
Mrs.Neha S. Bhide, Government Pleader with Mr.P.P.Kakade, Addl.GP
for the Respondent, the State.
Mr.Mandar Limaye for Respondent Nos. 2 to 6, the Municipal
Corporation.
…...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, ACJ
&
GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.
DATE : 28 AUGUST, 2026
P.C.:
1. The Petitioner contends that his entire structure in the road-
widening was not demolished. One small portion was kept secured. It
was handed over to a politician. He prays for the return of the said
premises.
2. The learned Advocate for the Corporation has filed an
affidavit-in-reply through the Assistant Municipal Commissioner, dated
Trupti S. Bamne
2 914-wp-2390-2025.odt
28.08.2026. The Corporation has taken a stand that the entire structure of
the Petitioner was demolished in the road-widening project. An alternate
accommodation has been offered to the Petitioner. The Petitioner himself
has placed the offer letter dated 14.10.2024 on record, at page No. 122 of
the Petition paper book. He is not willing to accept the said alternate
accommodation.
3. We find that the Petitioner had earlier approached this Court
in Writ Petition No. 2717 of 2023. In the order dated 02.05.2024 passed
by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the statement made by the
Petitioner, through the same Advocate who is appearing before us today,
was recorded in paragraph No. 3, wherein the Petitioner contended that
he would be entitled to an alternate accommodation or adequate
compensation as per the policy of Respondent No. 2 in respect of the
road-widening scheme.
4. The position is, thus, clear before us that the Petitioner does
not desire to accept the offer of alternate accommodation. This Court
would, therefore, not get into the disputed issues. The Petitioner himself
had stated in the earlier Writ Petition that he desired alternate
Trupti S. Bamne
3 914-wp-2390-2025.odt
accommodation, which indicates that the structure occupied by him was
demolished in the road-widening project.
5. In view of the above, since the Petitioner does not desire to
accept the alternate accommodation, the option to seek compensation
from the Corporation, is kept open to the Petitioner. All contentions in
this context are kept open.
6. This Writ Petition is disposed off.
(GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Trupti S. Bamne
Checking your session…