Bombay High Court

SMT. NASEEMA BEGAM NASIR AHMED ANSARI AND ANRversusTHE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF CITY OF THANE THROUGH MUN. COMMISSIONER AND ORS

Decided: 12 June 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: BHARATI DANGRE MANJUSHA AJAY DESHPANDE

Holding

The Apex Court’s decision setting aside the High Court’s reconstruction directions is affirmed; the petitions are disposed with categories directing the corporation to provide alternate accommodation or follow due process, and no entitlement to reconstruction is recognized.

Summary

The Bombay High Court heard a consolidated group of 28 writ petitions filed by individual shop and house owners whose structures were demolished by Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC) for road‑widening. The petitioners sought permission to reconstruct their demolished premises, alternate accommodation or compensation, invoking the High Court’s earlier order that allowed reconstruction at their own cost. The Apex Court, in Civil Appeals Nos.1253‑1271/2020, set aside those reconstruction directions, holding that the corporation could proceed with demolition after due process and that petitioners were entitled to alternate accommodation or compensation. The High Court, applying that precedent, categorized the petitions into four groups and ordered disposal: (i) temporary sheds may remain pending future road work, (ii) alternate galas to be handed over within a month, (iii) pending claims to be decided within eight weeks, and (iv) specific petitions disposed with directions on TDR and co‑owner consent. The court directed TMC to follow due process, allocate alternate accommodation as per policy, and allowed legal heirs to be brought on record where necessary. All writ petitions and pending applications were consequently disposed.

Issues considered

Whether demolition of structures for road widening without prior notice is lawful under municipal law.
Whether petitioners are entitled to reconstruct demolished structures as ordered by the High Court.
Whether petitioners are entitled to alternate accommodation or compensation in lieu of demolished premises.
Whether the High Court’s reconstruction directions are sustainable in view of the Apex Court’s judgment.
Whether a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) can be granted without co‑owners’ No‑Objection Certificate.
What procedure the municipal corporation must follow in allocating alternate galas to affected petitioners.

Subjects

demolition
road widening
municipal corporation
reconstruction
alternate accommodation
compensation
temporary structures
TDR
writ petition
rehabilitation
municipal law

Judgment

1/19 906 WP-12858-18 GRP.odt

Salgaonkar

MANDIRA MILIND
SALGAONKAR
Digitally signed by MANDIRA
MILIND SALGAONKAR
Date: 2026.06.18 11:10:53 +0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.12858 OF 2018
Yasmeen Amir Farooquee .. Petitioner
Versus
Thane Municipal Corporation .. Respondents
through its Municipal Commissioner
& Ors.

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.5132 OF 2018
Siyaram Ramai Yadav .. Petitioner
Versus
Thane Municipal Corporation .. Respondents
through its Municipal Commissioner
& Ors.

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9242 OF 2016
Brijraj Raghupati Kanojia .. Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporation of the City of .. Respondents
Thane & Anr.

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6697 OF 2016
Mohd.Ashfaque Huzoor Ahmed Khan .. Petitioner
through POA Mrs.Shakeela Khan
Versus
Thane Municipal Corporation .. Respondents
through its Municipal Commissioner
& Ors.
2/19 906 WP-12858-18 GRP.odt

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6739 OF 2016
Naseema Begam Nasir Ahmed Ansari .. Petitioners
& Anr.
Versus
Thane Municipal Corporation of City .. Respondents
of Thane through Municipal
Commissioner & Ors.

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6738 OF 2016
Shahnoor Shakil Hashmi .. Petitioner
Versus
Thane Municipal Corporation .. Respondents
through Municipal Commissioner &
Ors.

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6950 OF 2016
Dalichand Nathulalji Patel .. Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Thane City .. Respondents
of Thane & Anr..

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7460 OF 2016
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO.16895 OF 2022
Kamruddin Ibrahim Teli .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
3/19 906 WP-12858-18 GRP.odt

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7860 OF 2016
Shaikh Asif Jan Mohammed .. Petitioner
Versus
Thane Municipal Corporation .. Respondents
through Municipal Commissioner &
Ors.

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7856 OF 2016
Javed Khaliq Khan .. Petitioner
Versus
Thane Municipal Corporation .. Respondents
through Municipal Commissioner &
Ors.

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7864 OF 2016
Sadiqunnisa Ajmal Khan .. Petitioner
Versus
Thane Municipal Corporation .. Respondents
through Municipal Commissioner &
Ors.

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7857 OF 2016
Aslam Abdula Agha .. Petitioner
Versus
Thane Municipal Corporation .. Respondents
through Municipal Commissioner &
Ors.
4/19 906 WP-12858-18 GRP.odt

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7863 OF 2016
Asir Salauddin Inamdar .. Petitioner
Versus
Thane Municipal Corporation .. Respondents
through Municipal Commissioner &
Ors.

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7861 OF 2016
Inayatulla Kifayatulla Khan .. Petitioner
Versus
Thane Municipal Corporation .. Respondents
through Municipal Commissioner &
Ors.

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7858 OF 2016
Saikool Tafuzul Hussain Khan .. Petitioner
Versus
Thane Municipal Corporation .. Respondents
through Municipal Commissioner &
Ors.

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9122 OF 2016
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO.3546 OF 2021
Hidayatulla Mohammad Hasan Khan .. Petitioner
Versus
Thane Municipal Corporation .. Respondents
through Municipal Commissioner &
Ors.
5/19 906 WP-12858-18 GRP.odt

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9520 OF 2016
Yacoob Ali Kalu Miya Diwan .. Petitioner
Versus
Thane Municipal Corporation .. Respondents
through Municipal Commissioner &
Ors.

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.9517 OF 2016
Al-Khair Cafeteria (Fast Food) .. Petitioner
through Mr.Mohammed Satware
Versus
Thane Municipal Corporation .. Respondents
through Municipal Commissioner &
Ors.

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.4754 OF 2017
Jamal Ahmed Dawood Shaikh .. Petitioner
Versus
Thane Municipal Corporation .. Respondents
through Municipal Commissioner &
Ors.

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.624 OF 2019
Shakira Shamshuddin Qureshi .. Petitioner
Versus
Thane Municipal Corporation .. Respondents
through its Municipal Commissioner
& Ors.
6/19 906 WP-12858-18 GRP.odt

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.637 OF 2019
Abdul Hamid Abdul Gani Shaikh .. Petitioner
Versus
Thane Municipal Corporation through .. Respondents
its Municipal Commissioner & Ors.

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.627 OF 2019
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO.18829 OF 2022
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO.18914 OF 2022

Shakeel Ahmed Siraji Abdul Hameed & .. Petitioners
Anr.
Versus
Thane Municipal Corporation through .. Respondents
its Municipal Commissioner & Ors.

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.625 OF 2019
Mohd.Hussain Saifuddin Patanwala .. Petitioner
Versus
Thane Municipal Corporation through .. Respondents
its Municipal Commissioner & Ors.

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.626 OF 2019
Dawood Yaqoob Akhoon .. Petitioner
Versus
Thane Municipal Corporation through .. Respondents
its Municipal Commissioner & Ors.
7/19 906 WP-12858-18 GRP.odt

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.11531 OF 2018
Amina Sayed Ismail .. Petitioner
Versus
Thane Municipal Corporation .. Respondents
through its Municipal Commissioner
& Ors.

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.7069 OF 2018
Anis Munir Khan & Anr. .. Petitioners
Versus
Thane Municipal Corporation .. Respondents
through Municipal Commissioner &
Anr.

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.11345 OF 2016
Saifuddin Ismail Darugar .. Petitioner
Versus
The Commissioner, Thane Municipal .. Respondents
Corporation for Greater Thane &
Anr.

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.6429 OF 2017
Anil Kumar Maurya .. Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Thane City .. Respondents
of Thane
…

Mr. Rahul D. Motkari a/w Ms. Manasi Pawar for the Petitioners
in WP/7864/16, WP/7863/16, WP/5132/18, WP/624/19,
8/19 906 WP-12858-18 GRP.odt

WP/637/19, WP/627/19, IAST/18829/22, IAST/18914/22,
WP/625/19, WP/626/19 & WP/11531/18.
Mr. Tejas Gupta for the Petitioners in WP/9242/16,
WP/6697/16, WP/6739/16, WP/6738/16, WP/6950/16,
WP/4754/17, WP/7069/18 & WP/6429/17.
Ms. Eshika Chandan i/b Pegasus Legal for the Petitioners in
WP/7865/16, WP/7860/16, WP/7861/16, WP/7857/16 &
WP/7858/16.
Adv. A. A. Maniyar for the Petitioner in WP/9122/16.
Mr. Anas E. Shaikh a/w Mr. Tabish Mooman for the Petitioners
in WP/12858/18.
Mr. Tejas Gupta for the Petitioners in WP/9242/16,
WP/6697/16, WP/6739/16, WP/6738/16, WP/6950/16,
WP/4754/17, WP/7069/18 & WP/6429/17.
Ms. Eshika Chandan i/b Pegasus Legal for the Petitioners in
WP/7865/16, WP/7860/16, WP/7861/16, WP/7857/16 &
WP/7858/16.
Adv. A. A. Maniyar for the Petitioner in WP/9122/16.
Mr. Anas E. Shaikh a/w Mr. Tabish Mooman for the Petitioners
in WP/12858/18.
Mr. Mandar Limaye for the Respondent No. 1 in WP/6697/16 ,
WP/6739/16, WP/6738/16, WP/627/19, WP/626/19,
WP/11531/18, WP/11345/16, for the Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in
WP/7460/16, WP/9122/16 and for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2
in WP/7860/16, WP/7856/16, WP/7864/16, WP/7857/16,
WP/7863/16, WP/7861/16, WP/7858/16, WP/9520/16 &
WP/9517/16.
Mr. Rohit Sathadeo for the Respondent No. 1 & 2 in WP/
4754/2017 and for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 3 in WP/637/19.
Mr. Jagdish G. Aradwad (Reddy) for the Respondent No. 1 in
WP/12858/18.
Mr. Ajit Pitale a/w Mr. Siddharth Pitale for the Respondent in
WP/9242/16 and WP/625/19.
Ms.Chaitrali Deshmukh for the Respondent No. 1 in
WP/6429/17
Mr. Anand Kulkarni, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 in
WP/7069/18.
9/19 906 WP-12858-18 GRP.odt

Adv. A. I. Patel, Addl. G.P. with Mr. Karan S. Thorat, ‘B’ Panel
for the State/Respondent.

CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ.
DATE : 12th JUNE, 2026
...
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Bharati Dangre, J.)

1. The twenty-eight Writ Petitions Hled by the individuals
against Thane Municipal Corporation, being impleaded as
Respondent No.1, are placed before us and we are called upon
to decide the same in the wake of the order passed by the
Hon’ble Apex Court on 07/02/2020 in Civil Appeal Nos.1253-
1271 of 2020 in the case of Thane Municipal Corporation &
Ors. Vs. Javed Khaliq Khan etc.

2. Perusal of the order reveal that the Thane Municipal
Corporation approached the Apex Court, being aggrieved by
the judgment of the High Court dated 21/06/2018 rendered in
several writ petitions Hled by the individual respondents, who
had structures and shops situated within its jurisdiction. For
the purpose of widening of the road, the Corporation
demolished certain structures and shops belonging to the
respondents and this action was subjected to challenge by
Hling writ petitions in a group.
The High Court, in the impugned judgment, took into
consideration the detailed facts of each of the writ petition and
by relying upon the decision in case of Sopan Maruti Thopte &
Anr. Vs. Pune Municipal Corporation [AIR 1996 Bombay 304]
permitted the petitioners to reconstruct their respective
demolished structures at their cost, by ensuring that they
10/19 906 WP-12858-18 GRP.odt

shall maintain the same area of the structure, which the
earlier structure had before its demolition and by using the
same material for construction.
However, it was clariHed that if the structures are
reconstructed that will not confer any legality on the
structures and it will be open for the Municipal Corporation to
take action of demolition, if it is found to be in violation of the
norms prescribed by the Corporation. However, the
respondents were given liberty to make representation to the
Corporation seeking compensation and the Corporation was
directed to decide the said claim for compensation.

3. The argument of the Corporation that the demolition was
warranted for the purpose of road widening was appreciated in
contradiction of the stand of the respondents that they were
carrying out their livelihood from the structures and shops
which were demolished, without any prior notice.
The Corporation placed heavy reliance upon the decision
in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors.
Vs. M/s Sunbeam High Tech Developers Private Ltd. [2019(14)
SCALE 378], where certain guidelines were issued while
permitting the Corporation to take appropriate action after
due notice with regard to the structures, which were not
constructed, once the order of the High Court was set aside,
including the directions of reconstruction. By placing reliance
upon the directions contained in paragraph 23 of the decision,
the Apex Court was of the view that the directions issued by
the High Court cannot be sustained and they were set aside.
As regards the entitlement of the individual respondents
for being entitled for alternate accommodation, either of a
11/19 906 WP-12858-18 GRP.odt

shop or structure, which according to the Corporation was not
their entitlement, the Apex Court directed that it would be
appropriate to revive the writ petitions before the High Court
for fresh consideration and it was also open for the parties to
make their submissions with regard to their claim of alternate
accommodation or of compensation.

4. That is how the Petitions are listed before us.

5. Yesterday, we had heard the learned counsel for the
Petitioners and we requested learned counsel Mr.Mandar
Limaye, representing the Corporation, to take appropriate
instructions, as some of the Petitioners were clueless about the
current position.
Today, Mr.Limaye has reverted back alongwith
necessary information and he has divided the Petitions
broadly into four categories and requested for disposal of all
the Writ Petitions in the wake of the information furnished by
him.
Mr.Limaye has placed before us the chart of the Petitions
by specifying the category in which each of it would fall and,
since the counsel for the Petitioners did not express any
objection for disposing of the Writ Petitions in the wake of the
statement made by Mr.Limaye on behalf of the Thane
Municipal Corporation, by taking on record the chart, we deem
it appropriate to dispose of all the Writ Petitions.

6. In the Hrst category of ten Petitions, where the
Petitioners are permitted to construct a temporary shed by
the High Court and the Petitioners have constructed
temporary structures.
12/19 906 WP-12858-18 GRP.odt

In all the following Writ Petitions, a temporary shed of
the Petitioners is standing on the site and they are conducting
their avocation/business from the said construction.
In this group of matters, since the Corporation does not
have any concrete proposal, whether to remove the structures
for road widening purpose, a statement is made on behalf of
the Corporation, that it shall follow due process of law, if the
land is required for construction of the DP Road in future and
in such contingency, the Petitioners would be eligible for being
rehabilitated in accordance with the prevailing policy, subject
to their eligibility.
The details of the Petitions alongwith the names of the
parties and the description of the property covered in this
category are as below :-

Sr. Petition No. Name of the Description of the
No. Petitioner property
1 7856/2016 Javed Khaliq Khan Shop No. 1 situated at
Kausa Shopping Centre,
Near Caltex Petrol Pump,
Tanwar Nagar Road,
Kausa, Thane
admeasuring 200 sq. ft.

2 7857/2016 Aslam Abdul Agha A-1 Pan Shop situated at
Kausa Shopping Centre,
Near Caltex Petrol Pump,
Tanwar Nagar Road,
Kausa, Thane
admeasuring 200 sq. ft.

3 7858/2016 Mrs. Saikool Petrol Pump, Tanwar
Tafuzul Hussian Nagar Road, Kausa,
Khan Thane admeasuring 400
sq. ft.
13/19 906 WP-12858-18 GRP.odt

4 7860/2016 Shaikh Asif Jan Shop No. 2 situated at
Mohammed Kausa Shopping Centre,
Near Caltex Petrol Pump,
Tanwar Nagar Road,
Kausa, Thane
admeasuring 200 sq. ft.
5 7861/2016 Inayatulla Gala No. 1 situated at
Kifayatulla Khan Kausa Shopping Centre,
Near Caltex Petrol Pump,
Tanwar Nagar Road,
Kausa, Thane
admeasuring 264 sq. ft.
6 6429/2017 Anil Kumar House No. 384, Survey
Maurya No. 181, Hissa No. 1,
Shakti Nagar, Near Padal
Colony, Opp. Suryavanshi
Apartments, Mumbai-
Pune Road, Mumbra,
Thane admeasuring
217.20 sq. ft.
7 11345/2016 Saifuddin Ismail Tanwar Chicken Shop,
Darugar Shop No. 18, Tanwar
Nagar, Mumbra, Thane
admeasuring 11'8" × 16'.
8 627/2019 Shakil Ahmed Siraj Tanwar Chicken Shop
Abdul Hameed Nos. 1 & 2, Opposite
Padal Colony, Near
Sharada More Chawl,
Amrut Nagar, Mumbra,
Survey No. 82, Hissa No.
1 admeasuring 875 sq. ft.
9 9242/2016 Brijraj Raghupati Gala No. 31 situated in
Kanojia Shankar Mandir Trust
Chawl, Near Shankar
Mandir Gate, Mumbai-
Thane Road.
10 6950/2016 Dalichand Patel Shop No. 1 constructed
on Plot No. 50, Shankar
Mandir Trust Chawl,
Near Shankar Mandir
Gate, Mumbra
admeasuring 200 sq. ft.
14/19 906 WP-12858-18 GRP.odt

Interim Application No.18914 of 2022 in Writ Petition
No.627 of 2019 is taken out bringing the legal heirs on record
and the same is allowed by condoning the delay.
The aforesaid Writ Petitions are disposed of, by recording
the statement made by the Corporation.

7. In the second category, there are eight Petitions, where
the Corporation has Hled an afHdavit stating that the
Petitioners shall be handed over the alternate gala
admeasuring 70 to 80 sq.ft. within a period of one month. A
statement is also made in the afHdavit that the gala is ready to
be handed over and this would be by way of alternative
accommodation for the shops/galas of the respective
Petitioners, being demolished by the Corporation.
This category covers the following Petitions.

Sr. Petition No. Name of the Description of the
No. Petitioner property
1 4754/2017 Jamal Ahmed Shop No. 12 Part-I
Dawood Shaikh situated at Habib Manzil,
Survey No. 223/4, Hissa
No. 42, Opp. Darul Falah
Masjid, Kausa, Thane
admeasuring 200 sq. ft.
2 7864/2016 Sadiqunnisa Ajmal House No. 323/2 situated
Khan at Talav View, Near TMC
Gate, Old Mumbai-Pune
Road, Tanwar Nagar,
Kausa, Thane
admeasuring 850 sq. ft.
3 6697/2016 Mohd. Ashfaque Shop No. 14, New Royal
Huzoor Ahmed Chicken Shop, Ground
Khan Floor, H.G. House No. 41,
Near Mustafa Apartment,
Kausa, Thane.
15/19 906 WP-12858-18 GRP.odt

4 6738/2016 Smt. Shahnoor Shop No. 7 situated at
Shakil Hashmi H.G. House No. 41, Near
Mustafa Apartment,
Kausa, Thane
admeasuring 120 sq. ft.
5 6739/2016 Smt. Naseema Shop No. 2, Survey No.
Begam Nasir 158, Hissa No. 2, Ground
Ahmed Ansari Floor, Kausa, Thane
admeasuring 200 sq. ft.
6 9517/2016 Al-khair cafeteria Shop No. 4, Ground Floor,
(Fast Food Shop ) Survey No. 61, Hissa No.
through its sloe 1 & 2, Near Tanwar
prop. Mr. Garden Compound,
Mohammed Arif Kausa, Thane
Abbas Satware admeasuring 257 sq. ft.
7 9520/2016 Yacoob Ali Kalu Shop No. 2, Tanwar
Miya Diwan Garden Compound,
Survey No. 61, Hissa No.
1 & 2, Near Mohammed
Hussain Sume Garden,
Kausa, Thane
admeasuring 904.39 sq.
ft.
8 7069/ 2018 Anis Munir Khan & Shop No. 4, Ground Floor,
Anr. Survey No. 61, Hissa No.
1 & 2, Near Mohammed
Hussain Sume Garden,
Kausa, Thane.

The counsel appearing for the Petitioners in Writ Petition
Nos.6697, 6738 and 6739 of 2016, however, makes a request
to the Court that the Petitions should be kept pending, so that
the Petitioners, upon being allotted galas, will report to the
Court whether they are satisHed with the allotment and
whether the galas allotted is but for being occupied.
We do not accede to the said request for the reason that
the Petitions are pending for more than a decade and in the
light of the order of the Hon’ble Apex Court, when the
Corporation has come up before us with a stand that these
16/19 906 WP-12858-18 GRP.odt

Petitioners are entitled for alternate accommodation, as their
shops were demolished and they had not reconstructed the
same, we feel it appropriate that the Petitioners shall take
possession of the galas and then they can raise a grievance of
whatsoever nature, by Hling appropriate proceedings, as the
doors of the Court are always open for them.

8. In the third category, Mr.Limaye has categorised seven
Petitions, where no decision is yet taken upon the Petitioner’s
claim and a statement is made that the claim of the Petitioners
in the seven Petitions shall be considered in accordance with
the prevailing policy and upon veriHcation of their eligibility,
the alternate accommodation shall be allotted to them.
Though in these cases, no time limit has been speciHed by the
Corporation, we direct it to consider the claim of the
Petitioners in all the seven Petitions within a period of eight
weeks from today.
The details of the Petitions covered in this category are
as below :-
Sr. Petition No. Name of the Description of the
No. Petitioner property
1 637/2019 Abdul Hamid Abdul Gala No. 1, Tin Chawl No.
Gani Shaikh 2, Fakhrabai Ladkawala
Chawl, Bearing Survey
No. 150, Hissa No. 02,
Bombay-Pune Road,
Kausa, Thane
admeasuring 220 sq. ft.
2 625/2019 Mohammed Gala No. 3, Tin Chawl No.
Hussain Saifuddin 2, Fakhrabai Ladkawala
Patanwala Chawl, Bearing Survey
No. 150, Hissa No. 02,
Bombay-Pune Road,
Kausa, Thane
admeasuring 200 sq. ft.
17/19 906 WP-12858-18 GRP.odt

3 626/2019 Dawood Yaqoob Gala No. 1, Tin Chawl No.
Akhoon 1, Fakhrabai Ladkawala
Chawl, Bearing Survey
No. 150, Hissa No. 02,
Bombay-Pune Road,
Kausa, Thane.
4 11531/2018 Amina Sayed Shop No. 12, D & E,
Ismail Ground Floor of Habib
Manzil, H.G. House No.
42, Opp. Darul Falah
Masjid, Kausa, Thane
admeasuring 200 sq. ft.
5 12858/2018 Yasmeen Amir Gala No. 2 in Shankar
Farooquee Mandir Trust Chawl,
Bearing H.G. House No.
02, Bombay-Pune Road,
Kausa, Thane
admeasuring 150 sq. ft.
6 624/2019 Shakira Gala No. 4, Tin Chawl No.
Shamshuddin 3, Fakhrabai Ladkawala
Qureshi Chawl, Survey No. 73,
Hissa No. 59, Bombay-
Pune Road, Kausa,
Thane.
7. 5132/2018 Siyaram Ramai Kashi Sweet & Farsan
Yadav Mart, Shop No.1, Haider
Badar Colony, Near
Mustafa Apartment,
Mumbra admeasuring
300 sq.ft.

9. There are two Petitions, namely, Writ Petition Nos.7863
and 7460 of 2016, where Mr.Limaye for the Corporation make
a statement that the allotment of the alternate galas is already
made.
The counsel representing the Petitioner in Writ Petition
No.7460 of 2016 submits that the original Petitioner-
Kamruddin Ibrahim Teli has demised on 29/05/2020 and he
has taken out Interim Application (St) No.16895 of 2022 for
bringing his legal heirs on record.
18/19 906 WP-12858-18 GRP.odt

We allow the said Application and permit the legal heirs
to be brought on record.
The counsel has some grievance that the allotment that
is shown by the Corporation is not for Shop No.1 at Kadar
Palace Hotel, being described as admeasuring 8’ x 10’, but it is
for some other premises. If the Petitioners (legal heirs of
Kamruddin Ibrahim Teli) have any grievance in this regard,
they are at liberty to Hle a fresh Writ Petition, as we do not
intend to keep these Petitions pending.
In the wake of the above, Writ Petition Nos. 7863 and
7460 of 2016 are disposed of.

10. As far as Writ Petition No.9122 of 2016 Hled by the
Petitioner-Hidayatulla Mohammad Hasan Khan, involving
Shop No.1 situated at Kausa Shopping Centre, Kausa, Thane
admeasuring 450 sq.ft. is concerned, it is the stand of the
Corporation that the Petitioner is one of the owners of the land
beneath Shop No.1 and the Corporation agrees that he is
entitled for TDR to the extent of 400 sq.ft., but since in the said
property, there are co-owners, the Corporation shall hand over
the TDR to the Petitioner, subject to the No-objection
CertiHcate obtained from the co-owners or in proportion to his
share. Another stipulation is the compliance of UDCPR, which
is imperative.
The counsel for the Petitioner makes a grievance that the
insistence of No-objection CertiHcate from the co-owners is
unreasonable, but we do not Hnd any justiHcation to waive this
condition, but in future, if any contingency arises, as a result of
which the Petitioner is unable to avail the beneHt, he is at
19/19 906 WP-12858-18 GRP.odt

liberty to approach this Court, by Hling the appropriate
proceedings.

11. In light of the above order, all the Writ Petitions,
alongwith pending Applications, if any, stand disposed of.
No order as to cost.

(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…