Bombay High Court
HAMIDABI SAYYED GANI AND ANRversusMUMBAI METROPOLITIAN REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MMRDA THROU. ITS CHIEF TOWN AND AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as the dispute is a matter for the civil court, not the High Court.
Summary
The petitioners alleged that respondents Nos.2 and 3 had constructed a structure encroaching on the petitioners' private plot after obtaining Gram Panchayat permission. The High Court observed that determining the encroachment requires joint measurement, boundary identification, and evidence, which are matters for a civil court between private parties. The petitioners were already defendants in a pending civil suit filed by the respondents for declaration of development rights. Consequently, the Court found no basis to entertain the writ petition and directed that the matter be pursued in the civil suit. The petition was therefore dismissed, with all contentions in the pending suit left open.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition challenging alleged encroachment on private property can be entertained by the High Court when a civil suit is pending between the parties
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to order demolition and restoration of possession in a dispute between private parties
Subjects
- encroachment
- civil suit
- jurisdiction
- writ petition
- property dispute
- high court
- private parties
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
GAURI AMIT 150.WP-2961-2025.odt
GAURI GAEKWAD
AMIT Date:
GAEKWAD 2026.02.20
14:45:33
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2961 OF 2025
Hamidabi Sayyed Gani & Anr. ….Petitioners
Versus
Mumbai Metropolitan Regional
Development Authority and Ors. ….Respondents
----
Mr. Prithviraj S. Gole for the Petitioners.
Mr. Akshay Shinde for Respondent No.1.
Ms. Leena Patil, AGP for Respondent No.4.
----
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
&
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
DATE : 17th FEBRUARY, 2026
P.C. :-
1. Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have constructed a structure
after obtaining permission from the concerned Gram Panchayat. The
grievance of the Petitioners is that part of the construction is on their
private plot.
2. We find that the Petitioners will first have to get a joint
measurement of the properties of the Petitioners as well as
Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Thereafter, identification and fixation of
the boundaries will have to be done. This will be followed by
identification of the encroachment. Thereafter, an order for
Gauri Gaekwad 1 of 2
150.WP-2961-2025.odt
demolition of the identified encroachment and restoration of
possession of the plot which the Petitioners have lost, would have to
be passed. This would require oral and documentary evidence. The
Petitioners will have to approach the Civil Court, considering that
the litigation is between two private parties regarding their private
properties.
3. The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that
Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have already instituted a Civil Suit and that
the Petitioners are Defendants in the said Suit. The Suit is for
declaration, since the Petitioners gave development rights to
Respondent No.2.
4. In view of the above, we have no reason to entertain
this Petition.
5. This Petition is, therefore, dismissed.
6. Needless to state, all the contentions of all the
stakeholders in the pending Suit are kept open.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
Gauri Gaekwad 2 of 2
Checking your session…