Rashmi Shah ThakkarversusMunicipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

PDP                                                 908-WP-2734-2026.doc


         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
              ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

                  WRIT PETITION NO. 2734 OF 2026

Rashmi Shah Thakkar & Anr.                         .. Petitioners

            Vs.

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
& Ors.                                             .. Respondents

                                   ...
Ms. Fatima Barodawala a/w Suvarna Jadhav for Petitioners.
Ms. K. H. Mastakar for Respondent Nos.1 to 4 – BMC.
Smt. Fatima R. Lakadawala, AGP for Respondent Nos.5 and 6 – State.
Mr. J. M. D’Silva with Jacqline D’Silva for Respondent Nos. 7 to 22.
Mr. Virendra Tiwari (through V.C.) for Respondent Nos.23 to 25.
                                   ...

             CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &
                     ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.

            DATE      : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026.

P.C. :

1.          Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.


2.          By the instant Writ Petition, the Petitioners, inter alia,
praying for the following substantive reliefs :-


            “a. Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other
            appropriate writ, order or direction directing
            Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to forthwith take appropriate
            action under the provisions of the Mumbai Municipal
            Corporation Act, 1888, including under Section 354
            thereof, in respect of the said building known as
            Rashmi Kunj, being a dangerous and dilapidated
            structure.

                                    1
PDP                                                   908-WP-2734-2026.doc


           b.    Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other
           appropriate writ, order or direction directing
           Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to forthwith evacuate all persons
           in occupation and/or possession of the premises in the
           said building and to take consequential steps, including
           demolition of the said building, in the interest of public
           safety.

           c.     Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other
           appropriate writ, order or direction directing
           Respondent Nos.1 to 4 to consider and process the
           Petitioners’ building/redevelopment proposal in respect
           of the said property in accordance with law, and not to
           reject the same solely on the ground of non-cooperation
           or absence of consent/no-objection from Respondent
           Nos.21 to 23, subject to the rights and contentions of all
           parties, and, upon evacuation of the said building, to
           consider granting the requisite permissions and
           approvals to the Petitioners for redevelopment in
           accordance with law, including IOD, commencement
           permissions,      utilization   and/or    purchase      of
           transferable development rights, and all consequential
           or incidental approvals.”


2.         What we find that the Petitioners claim certain rights over
the property in question. However, the counter claim has also been
submitted by the private Respondents. As in the instant proceeding,
the entire claim is set up that the subject building is inhabitable, in
dilapidated condition and at any point of time some untoward
incident is likely to occur. A Complaint by the Petitioners is already
moved before the Respondent Nos.1 to 4-BMC, which is said to be
pending consideration.


3.         At present, we are not inclined to advert on merits qua the
rights of the parties. We leave it open to the parties to press qua the
title, right and interest over the subject property before the competent

                                   2
                     PDP                                                        908-WP-2734-2026.doc



                     Civil Court. However, as the grievance/complaint of the Petitioners,
                     which is stated to be pending before the Respondent Nos.1 to 4- BMC,
                     we expect the same may be redressed in accordance with law
                     expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of
                     uploading   of   this   Order,   but   certainly   after    giving      sufficient
                     opportunity of hearing to all stakeholders.


                     4           With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petition is Disposed
                     Of.


                     5.          Needless to state, we have not adverted into the merits of
                     the matter and all contentions of the parties are kept open.



                       [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.]                             [CHIEF JUSTICE]



          Digitally signed
          by PRAVIN
PRAVIN    DASHARATH
DASHARATH PANDIT
PANDIT    Date:
          2026.09.24
          16:11:12 +0530




                                                            3