Dismissed¶7

Bhosale Homes Thr Its Partner v. City and Industrial Development Corporation and Ors.

Bombay HC23 Apr 2026RPW/66/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bhosale Homes; CIDCO; review petition dismissed; Order XLVII Code of Civil Procedure; review of judgment dated 20-03-2025 in W.P. 4435/2022; Stop Work Notice dated 31-08-2016; CIDCO Circular dated 12-04-2018; no retrospective application; letter dated 09-11-2012; District Collector Raigad; Respondent No.6; Sir Mohammed Haji Yusuf Trust; ownership/title dispute; jurisdictional civil Court; writ jurisdiction; Article 226 Constitution of India; no error apparent on face of record; liberty to file civil suit; Bombay High Court; Gadkari and Khata JJ.; decision 23-04-2026.

What did the court decide?

There is no error apparent on the face of record in the Judgment dated 20th March 2025; consequently the review Petition cannot be entertained and is dismissed as having no merits. ¶6

Bhosale Homes Thr Its Partner vs City and Industrial… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether there exists any error apparent on the face of record in the Judgment dated 20th March 2025 warranting its review under Order XLVII CPC. +2 more

¶15

Court's answer

There is no error apparent on the face of record in the Judgment dated 20th March 2025; consequently the review Petition cannot be entertained and is dismissed as having no merits.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

The material which was placed before the Court had been duly considered while delivering the Judgment dated 20th March 2025 (i.e., the judgment under review).

¶6

Key takeaways

Reaffirming para No. 8 of the Judgment under review: this is a case involving a dispute with regard to the title of the land, whose rights must be adjudicated before the jurisdictional civil Court and cannot be adjudicated in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; accordingly the Writ Petition had been dismissed with liberty to avail the civil-court remedy.ratio¶23

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review Petition No. 66 of 2026 in W.P. No. 4435 of 2022 (M/s. Bhosale Homes v. City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. & Ors.), filed under Order XLVII CPC seeking review of the Bombay High Court's judgment dated 20.03.2025, DISMISSED (coram: A. S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata, JJ.; signed Kamal Khata, J., 23.04.2026). Background: CIDCO initiated a Stop Work Notice dated 31.08.2016 on the basis of a communication/letter dated 09.11.2012 received, per the Court, from the District Collector, Raigad (Respondent-CIDCO's counsel attributed the letter to Respondent No.6 and identified Sir Mohammed Haji Yusuf Trust as owner of the suit land); the review Petitioner contended the notice was issued under a CIDCO Circular dated 12.04.2018 having no retrospective application. The Court held the material on record had been duly considered in the judgment under review, found no error apparent on the face of record, and reiterated (para No. 8 of the judgment under review) that the title dispute must be adjudicated before the jurisdictional civil Court and lies outside writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner's retrospectivity contention was not separately adjudicated.

¶1

DTG 13-ii- Rpw-66-2026.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

REVIEW PETITION NO. 66 OF 2026 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4435 OF 2022

M/s. Bhosale Homes

… Petitioner

V/s.

City And Industrial Development Corporation

¶9

of Maharashtra Ltd. & Ors.

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

Mr. Niketan Nakhawa a/w Mr. Pramod Purav for Petitioner.

¶12

Mr. G.S. Hegde, senior counsel a/w Ms. P.M. Bhansali for Respondent-CIDCO. Ms. M.P. Thakur, A.G.P. for Respondent-State.

¶13

CORAM : A. S. GADKARI AND KAMAL KHATA, JJ. DATE : 23^rd April 2026

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

By this review Petition filed under Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Petitioner is seeking review of Judgment dated 20^th March 2025.

¶16

Heard Mr. Nakhawa, learned Advocate for review Petitioner, Mr. Hegde, learned Senior Advocate for Respondent-CIDCO and learned APP Ms. Thakur, for Respondent-State. Perused record.

¶17

Learned Advocate for the review Petitioner submitted that, the Stop Work Notice was dated 31^st August 2016. However, the Circular issued

¶18

1/3

¶19

DTG 13-ii- Rpw-66-2026.doc

¶20

by the CIDCO is 12^th April 2018, under which the said Stop Work Notice is issued. He submitted that, the said Circular has no retrospective application for issuance of Stop Work Notice and reject the permission to construct on the suit land. He therefore requested this Court to review the said Judgment dated 20^th March 2025 and restore the Petition to file.

¶21

Mr. Hegde, learned Senior Advocate appearing for RespondentCIDCO opposed the Petition. He submitted that, the Stop Work Notice is issued on the basis of communication/letter dated 9^th November 2012 received from the Respondent No.6 informing the CIDCO that, the Petitioner is not the owner of the suit land and it is Sir Mohammed Haji Yusuf Trust, who owns the said land. He submitted that, there is no merit in the review Petition and it may be dismissed.

¶22

Perusal of Judgment under review indicates that, there is a serious dispute about the ownership of the suit land. It is on the basis of communication / letter dated 9^th November 2012 received from the District Collector, Raigad, that CIDCO initiated steps to issue Stop Work Notice dated 31^st August 2016.

¶23

5.1) In the Judgment under review, in para No. 8, we have categorically held that, this would be a case where there is a dispute with regard to the title of the land, of which rights will have to be adjudicated before the jurisdictional civil Court and cannot be adjudicated in our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, we

¶24

2/3

¶25

DTG 13-ii- Rpw-66-2026.doc

¶26

have dismissed the said Petition by granting liberty to the Petitioner to avail the remedy before the Civil Court, if so advised.

¶27

Perusal of record indicates that, the material which was placed before us has been duly considered while delivering Judgment dated 20^th March 2025. We find that, there is no error apparent on the face of record to review the Judgment dated 20^th March 2025.

¶28

According to us, present Petition has no merits and is accordingly dismissed.

¶29

( KAMAL KHATA, J. )

¶30

3/3

Bhosale Homes Thr Its Partner v. City and Industrial Development Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhosale Homes Thr Its Partner v. City and Industrial Development Corporation and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Joaquim Gabriel D Costa vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay and 3 Ors.

Chandrasekaran Subbaiya Nayakar @ Chandrasekaran K .v. Subbaiya S/O K.v.Subbaiya vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Shantaram Baban Dumbare vs State of Maharashtra

Hiraman Mahadu Mali vs State of Maharashtra

Primezone Developers Private Limited vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Babu @ Ranjit Ramesh Dalvi vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.