Disposed

Nusrat Aziz Bobde v. the State of Maharashtra Throu. Its Principal Sec. Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC17 Jun 2026IA/4299/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court; interim application in writ petition; TDR/FSI compensation cannot be forced on owner for road-widening acquisition; Shree Vinayak Builders and Developers v. State of Maharashtra (2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1562) Full Bench relied on; Municipal Corporation notice and demolition/removal order dated 09/06/2026 for alleged unauthorised construction; restraint on acting on demolition order;

What did the court decide?

Interim Application No. 4299 of 2026 disposed of with direction that, in light of the interim order in the Writ Petition, the respondent-corporation shall not act upon its order dated 09/06/2026 till

Nusrat Aziz Bobde Vs the State of Maharashtra Throu. Its Principal Sec. Urban Development Dept and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

905-WP-10993-2025.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 4299 OF 2026 WITH

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 10993 OF 2025

¶6

Nusrat Aziz Bobde V/S.

¶7

Petitioner

¶8

The State Of Maharashtra .. Respondents Throu. Its Principal Sec. Urban Development Dept And Ors

¶9

WITH

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO. 10994 OF 2025

¶11

Digitally signed by VARSHA VARSHA DEEPAK DEEPAK GAIKWAD GAIKWAD Date: 2026.06.18 10:32:20 +0530

¶12

Mr. Atharva Dandekar i/by Gautam Jain, for petitioner in WP/10993/2025 and 10994/2025.

¶13

Mr. N.R. Bubna a/w Pooja Malik, for respondent No. 4/Municipal Corporation.

¶14

Ms. P.J. Gavhane, AGP, for Respondent/State.

¶15

CORAM : MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. DATE : 17TH JUNE 2026.

¶16

PC:

¶17

The petitioner is constrained to move this application in peculiar circumstances.

¶18

It is an admitted position that in this very writ petition bearing Writ Petition No. 10993 of 2025, a division bench of this Court (Coram: G.S. Kulkarni and Manjusha Deshpande, JJ) had passed an order dated 21/05/2025 specifically directing the respondent- Municipal Corporation not to take any coercive action against the petitioners.

¶19

1 of 3

¶20

varsha

¶21

905-WP-10993-2025.doc

¶22

The principal grievance raised in the Writ petition is that the respondent - Municipal Corporation cannot force the petitioner to accept TDR /FSI as compensation for the acquisition of the property of the petitioners for the purpose of road widening.

¶23

As per the full bench judgment of this Court in the case of ' Shree Vinayak Builders and Developers Vs. State of Maharashtra' (2022 SCC online Bom 1562) and further judgments rendered by various Division Benches, it is clear that compensation in the form of TDR/FSI, instead of monetary compensation cannot be forced upon an owner.

¶24

The petition is pending consideration, wherein the respondentcorporation has already filed its reply affidavit. The petition would be taken up for consideration on its own merits.

¶25

But, in the interregnum the respondent-Municipal Corporation chose to issue notice to the petitioner alleging unauthorised construction in the subject property. The petitioner responded but claimed that the entire set of documents was not available at the relevant time and hence sought further time.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner informs this Court that necessary applications were made to procure documents. But, by an order recently issued on 09/06/2026, the respondent-corporation has gone ahead to direct the removal of the unauthorised construction, threatening that if the same is not done within a period of seven days, the corporation through its contractor would proceed to take action of demolition.

¶27

The least that was expected from the respondent-Municipal corporation was to have appriased this Court about its proposed action for the removal of unauthorised construction. There can be no doubt that

¶28

2 of 3

¶29

varsha

¶30

905-WP-10993-2025.doc

¶31

the respondent-Municipal corporation would be well within its powers to proceed against unauthorised construction, but in the face of the interim order operating since 21/08/2025, the respondent-corporation, before passing its order, should have approached this Court seeking leave to take action in accordance with law.

¶32

Prima facie, this Court has gathered an impression that the respondent-Municipal Corporation is trying to play a fast one on this Court, which cannot be countenanced.

¶33

In view of the above, the application is disposed of by directing that in the light of the interim order dated 21/08/2025 passed by this Court in the Writ Petition, the respondent-corporation shall not act upon the said order dated 09/06/2026 till the disposal of Writ Petition.

¶34

The Writ Petition is fixed for hearing/disposal on 28th July 2026, 'High on Board'

¶35

The interim order dated 21/08/2025 shall continue to operate till then.

¶36

Needless to say, this Court has not made any observations on the merits of the order dated 09/06/2026. At the same time, the petitioner is at liberty to challenge the said order by way of independent challenge, in accordance with law.

¶37

WRIT PETITION NO. 10994 OF 2025

¶38

List for further consideration / hearing on 20th July 2026, High on Board. To be taken up with Writ Petition No. 10993 of 2025.

¶39

(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.)

¶40

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶41

3 of 3

¶42

varsha

Nusrat Aziz Bobde v. the State of Maharashtra Throu. Its Principal Sec. Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nusrat Aziz Bobde v. the State of Maharashtra Throu. Its Principal Sec. Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases