Bombay High Court
Dr Sanjay Narendra SinghversusThe State of Maharashtra Through Urban Development Department Mantralaya Mumbai AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the municipal corporation must issue the occupancy certificate within two weeks and disposed of the petition regarding acquisition, as acquisition under Section 77 requires an agreement with the owner.
Summary
Dr. Sanjay Narendra Singh, who runs a hospital, challenged the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation's steps to acquire his property under Section 77 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, and sought an occupancy certificate, health licences and NOC. The petitioner submitted the required documents for the occupancy certificate on 10 June 2026, and the corporation promised to process the application within four weeks. The corporation also formed a seven‑member committee to examine technical aspects and valuation of the property for negotiation under Section 77. The Court noted that fire, health and town‑planning departments had certified the building as fit for occupation, and that acquisition under Section 77 requires an agreement with the owner. Consequently, the Court directed the corporation to issue the occupancy certificate within two weeks and disposed of the petition concerning the acquisition, stating no interim order was warranted.
Issues considered
- Whether the municipal corporation is obliged to grant an occupancy certificate to the petitioner pending the acquisition process.
- Whether interim relief restraining the acquisition under Section 77 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 is warranted.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- occupancy certificate
- municipal acquisition
- Section 77
- writ petition
- interim relief
- health licence
- NOC
- property acquisition
- municipal law
Judgment
908_WP4253_26.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4253 OF 2026
Dr. Sanjay Narendra Singh … Petitioner
Vs.
State of Maharashtra through Urban Development
Department and others … Respondents
Mr. Mandaar Goswami a/w. Mr. Siddhant Choudhari for Petitioner.
Mr. Soham Bhalerao a/w. Mr. Arnav Ashtikar i/b. DSK Legal for Respondent-
CIDCO.
Mr. Ketan Joshi, ‘B’ Panel Counsel a/w. Mr. R. S. Pawar, AGP for Respondents-
State.
Mr. Tejesh Dande a/w. Mr. Bharat Gadhvi, Mr. Sarvesh Deshpande, Mr. Tanuj
Kabra and Mr. Parth Talekar for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Mr. Santosh Chaudhary, Deputy Engineer, Town Planing.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
DATE : AUGUST 20, 2026
P.C. :
. The petitioner is a doctor, who has approached this Court being
aggrieved by steps taken by the respondent - Navi Mumbai Municipal
Corporation with regard to the acquisition of property of the petitioner
wherein he has set up a hospital. This Court had permitted the petitioner
to amend the writ petition and accordingly, it was amended. In the order
dated 30.06.2026, this Court had made the following observations:-
“1. Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the
Petitioner, the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent -
Municipal Corporation and learned AGP for the State.
2. In the light of the order dated 09/04/2026 passed by this
Court, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent -
MINAL Digitally signed by
MINAL SANDIP
Municipal Corporation submits that upon considering the
SANDIP PARAB
PARAB
Date: 2026.08.20
18:10:25 +0530
application submitted on behalf of Petitioner for granting
1/4
908_WP4253_26.doc
occupancy certificate, by a communication dated 10/06/2026,
the Petitioner was informed that in the light of corrections
required in the drawings, certain steps would have to be taken
at the end of the Petitioner. Learned senior counsel appearing
for the Petitioner, on instructions, makes a statement that the
Petitioner has taken necessary steps on 10/06/2026 itself by
submitting necessary documents. In that light, the learned
counsel appearing for Respondent - Municipal Corporation
makes a statement that the documents and the application for
grant of occupancy certificate submitted by the Petitioner shall
be processed within four weeks. As regards, the directions
sought by the Petitioner against the Respondents for granting
requisite health licences, permissions and NOC, upon the
Petitioner approaching the Respondents, they shall proceed in
accordance with law.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent
Municipal Corporation seeks time to file reply affidavit in the
writ petition. He particularly relies upon the resolution of the
said Respondent specifically stating that the proposal for
acquisition concerns Section 77 of the Maharashtra Municipal
Corporation Act, 1949, thereby indicating that the proposed
acquisition is only by way of negotiations and agreement. On
this basis, it is submitted that there is no basis for the
apprehensions expressed on behalf of the Petitioner in the
present writ petition.
4. We are of the opinion that since the Petitioner is
evidently not agreeable for acquisition of the subject property,
the resolution passed by the Respondent Municipal Corporation
for acquisition under Section 77 of the said Act in all likelihood
will meet with failure. Therefore, at this stage, we are of the
opinion that no ad-interim or interim order is warranted.
5. Reply affidavit on behalf of the Respondent - Municipal
Corporation as well as the Respondent - State shall be filed
within four weeks from today.
6. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within two weeks
thereafter.
7. List the Petition for further consideration on 12th
August 2026, ‘High on Board’.”
2. The respondent Municipal Corporation has filed an affidavit of its
Assistant Director of Town Planning dated 14.08.2026, wherein the
2/4
908_WP4253_26.doc
following statement is made:-
“19. I further say that pursuant to the said General Body
Resolution No.43 dated 02.04.2026, the Municipal
Commissioner has constituted a Committee of 7 Officers of
Municipal Corporation to initiate the process of acquisition as
provided u/s. 77 of Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act,
1949. The said Committee was constituted by the Municipal
Commissioner vide his Order dated 18.05.2026. The said
Committee is in the process of examining technical aspects as
well as initiating the process of valuation of the said property
for the purpose of negotiation with the allottee of the said plot.
20. I further say that as per the application received from
Project Proponent for issuance of Completion Certificate /
Occupation Certificate for the said hospital, the construction
carried out by the Project Proponent is found as per the
sanctioned plan. Further the Fire Department, Health
Department and the Town Planning Department have already
certified that structure is fit to occupy. In view of such
compliances, the Project Proponent is eligible to get Occupation
Certificate for the said structure, however in view of the
General Body Resolution No.43 dated 02.04.2026 and in view
of constitution of Committee to take steps as per Section 77 of
the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949, the process
of acquisition and negotiators with the allottee of the plot is
underway.”
3. We are of the opinion that in the light of the aforesaid statement
made in the said affidavit of the respondent Municipal Corporation,
appropriate directions can be issued for the occupancy certificate to be
issued in favour of the petitioner. As regards the question of acquisition,
in the light of the stand taken by the respondent Municipal Corporation,
the writ petition itself can be disposed of.
4. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of by recording a
statement made by the learned counsel on behalf of the respondent Navi
Mumbai Municipal Corporation as per instructions given by one
Mr.Santosh Choudhary, Deputy Engineer, Town Planning of the
Municipal Corporation that even if it has to proceed further in pursuance
of resolution dated 20.03.2026 for taking steps under Section 77 of the
3/4
908_WP4253_26.doc
Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, further steps will be
taken in accordance with the aforesaid provision, which necessitates an
agreement with the owner of the property, in this case, the petitioner.
5. In the light of the above-quoted statements made in the affidavit
filed on behalf of the respondent Municipal Corporation, the said
respondent is directed to issue occupancy certificate to the petitioner
within two weeks from today.
6. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Minal Parab
4/4
Checking your session…