Shabbir Yaqoob Ghanchi vs State of Maharashtra Thru. Secretary and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Shabbir Yaqoob Ghanchi vs State of Maharashtra Thru. Secretary and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petitions disposed of by directing respondent No.2 to decide the representations submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law and within a period of eight weeks; pending applications, if any, also disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, whose shops/galas were demolished for widening of road without payment of compensation, are entitled to redressal from the State of Maharashtra and/or the Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Finding substance in the contention raised on behalf of the respondent municipal corporation, this Court held that the representations moved by the petitioners in December 2025 / January 2026 could be decided within a time bound period so that the grievances of the petitioners could be addressed.

Key takeaways

This Court disposed of the writ petitions by directing respondent No.2 to decide the representations submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law and within a period of eight weeks.ratio¶¶60
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.ratio¶¶61

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Bench: Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat, JJ.; order dated 21 April 2026. Batch of fourteen writ petitions (lead: W.P. No.4896 of 2026, Rajaram Somaru Gupta v. State of Maharashtra; also Nos. 4909, 4910, 717, 721, 719, 729, 724, 723, 961, 970, 1265, 1270, 1269 of 2026). Grievance: petitioners' shops/galas were demolished for widening of road and compensation has not been paid; respondents include the State of Maharashtra, respondent No.2 Municipal Corporation (Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation) and its officer (respondent No.3). Representations had been submitted to respondent No.2 in December 2025 / January 2026 seeking redressal. Finding substance in the respondent municipal corporation's contention that those representations could be decided within a time bound period, the Court disposed of the petitions, directing respondent No.2 to decide the representations in accordance with law and within eight weeks; pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. No statute and no precedent is cited; the question of compensation entitlement itself was not adjudicated by this Court.

1

[email protected]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.4896 OF 2026

VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR

Digitally signed by VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR Date: 2026.04.21 17:40:53 +0530

Rajaram Somaru Gupta … Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Others … Respondents

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4909 OF 2026 (Sr.No.14) Mohammed Kadar Haji V.K. … Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Others … Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.4910 OF 2026 (Sr.No.15) Uma Sadashiv Patil … Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Others … Respondents

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.717 OF 2026 (Sr.No.76) Harshad Ambalal Patel … Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Others … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.721 OF 2026 Mujeeb Mian Rais Mian Shaikh … Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Others … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.719 OF 2026 Ansari Ansar Ali Ameer Ali … Petitioner Vishal Parekar

….1

2

[email protected]

Versus State of Maharashtra and Others

… Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.729 OF 2026 Abdul Kadar Nooji … Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Others … Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.724 OF 2026 Chandankumar Ramjibhai Shah … Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Others … Respondents

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.723 OF 2026

Mohammad Ibrahim Mehmood Miyan Mujahid and Another … Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra and Others … Respondents

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.961 OF 2026 (Sr.No.78)

Riyazuddin Babu Hussain Ansari … Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Others … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.970 OF 2026 (Sr.No.79) Nazmeen Habib Khan … Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Others … Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.1265 OF 2026 (Sr.No.83)

Vishal Parekar

….2

3

[email protected]

Shabbir Yaqoob Ghanchi … Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Others … Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.1270 OF 2026

Shaukat Ali Mohd. Ali Shaikh … Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Others … Respondents

WITH

WRIT PETITION NO.1269 OF 2026

Anjana Chandrakant Igewad … Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Others … Respondents

Mr. F.N. Momin, for the Petitioners.

Ms. Tanu Bhatia, for Respondents No. 2 and 3- Corporation. Smt. M.S. Bane, AGP for Respondent-State in WP No. 4896 of 2026, WP No. 717 of 2026 and WP No. 961 of 2026.

Mr. R.S. Pawar, AGP for Respondent-State in WP No. 4909 of 2026, WP No. 721 of 2026, WP No. 970 of 2026 and WP No. 1269 of 2026. Mr. O.A. Chandurkar, AGP in WP No. 4910 of 2026. Smt. P.M. Deshpande, AGP for Respondent-State in WP no. 719 of 2026. Smt. G.R. Raghuwanshi, for Respondent-State in WP no. 729 of 2026, WP No. 1265 of 2026 and WP No. 1270 of 2026.

Smt. Pooja Patil, AGP for Respondent-State in WP No. 724 of 2026.

Mr. Swapnil Kamble, for Respondent-State in WP no. 723 of 2026.

CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. DATE : 21^st APRIL, 2026

Vishal Parekar

….3

4

[email protected]

P.C. :

The grievance of the petitioners in these petitions is that, their shops / galas were demolished for widening of road and that they have not been paid compensation. The State of Maharashtra and the officers of Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation have been made respondents in these petitions.

In all these petitions, the petitioners have submitted representations addressed to the respondent No.2 Municipal Corporation seeking redressal of their grievance.

Learned AGPs appear for respondent No. 1 - State and Ms. Bhatia, learned counsel appears on behalf of respondent No.2 – Municipal Corporation and respondent No.3 i.e. the officer of the said Municipal Corporation.

We find substance in the contention raised on behalf of the respondent municipal corporation that the representations moved by the petitioners in December 2025 / January 2026 can be decided within a time bound period so that the grievances of the petitioners can be addressed.

In view of the above, the writ petitions are disposed of by directing the respondent No.2 to decide the representations submitted by the petitioners in

Vishal Parekar

….4

5

[email protected]

accordance with law and within a period of eight weeks from today.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)

Vishal Parekar

….5