Disposed¶41

Raees Abdul Jalil Ansari v. State of Maharashtra Thro. Its Principal Secretary Urban Devp. Department

Bombay HC10 Feb 2026WP/1646/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Road widening demolition of shops/galas; non-payment of compensation; Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation respondent No.2; officer of Municipal Corporation respondent No.3; State of Maharashtra Urban Development Department; representations of December 2025 / January 2026; decision within time bound period; direction to decide representations in accordance with law; eight weeks; writ petitions disposed; pending applications disposed; Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction, 23 April 2026.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.2 (Municipal Corporation) directed to decide the representations submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law and within a period of eight weeks. ¶41

Raees Abdul Jalil Ansari vs State of Maharashtra Thro. Its Principal Secretary Urban Devp. Department — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Respondent No.2 (Municipal Corporation) directed to decide the representations submitted by the petitioners in accordance with law and within a period of eight weeks.

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether the grievances of the petitioners regarding demolition of their shops/galas for road widening and non-payment of compensation can be redressed through consideration of their representations by respondent No.2 (Municipal Corporation).

¶37

Ratio / Principle

The Court found substance in the contention raised on behalf of the respondent municipal corporation that the representations moved by the petitioners in December 2025 / January 2026 could be decided within a time bound period.

¶40

Key takeaways

The writ petitions are 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 from the date of the order.ratio¶41
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.ratio¶45

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Manish Pitale & Shreeram V. Shirsat, JJ.), order dated 23 April 2026 in a batch of eleven writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 1642-1646, 5195, 5196, 5205, 5233, 5235 and 5236 of 2026) filed by owners of shops/galas that were demolished for widening of road, who alleged they had not been paid compensation. Respondents: State of Maharashtra (Principal Secretary, Urban Development Department), Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation (respondent No.2) and its officer (respondent No.3). The petitioners had earlier submitted representations to respondent No.2 in December 2025 / January 2026. Finding substance in the Corporation's contention that those representations could be decided within a time bound period, the Court disposed of the writ petitions by directing respondent No.2 to decide the representations in accordance with law and within eight weeks; pending applications, if any, stood disposed of. The merits of the compensation claim were not adjudicated.

¶1

17-wp-5195-2026.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 5195 OF 2026

¶5

Digitally signed by VARSHA VARSHA DEEPAK DEEPAK GAIKWAD GAIKWAD Date: 2026.04.24 10:49:25 +0530

¶6

Rajendra Chandulal Shah .. Petitioner V/S. State of Maharashtra Thr. Its .. Respondents Principal Secretary Urban Development Department and Ors WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5196 OF 2026 Taufique Abdul Hafiz Shaikh .. Petitioner V/S. State of Maharashtra Thru. Secretary .. Respondents And Ors WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5233 OF 2026 Rajbhoj Ranjane Sopan .. Petitioner V/S. State of Maharashtra Throu. Its .. Respondents Principal Sec. Urban Development Dept and Ors WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5235 OF 2026 G M Mohammad Momini Shaikh .. Petitioners And Anr V/S. State of Maharashtra Thr Its .. Respondents Principal Secretary And Ors

1 of 5

varsha

17-wp-5195-2026.doc

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5236 OF 2026

¶11

Mohd Arif Mohd Gaus Sayyad .. Petitioner
V/S.
State of Maharashtra Thr Its Principal Secretary And Ors .. Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1642 OF 2026
Abdul Moid Babullah Khan .. Petitioner
V/S.
State of Maharashtra Throu.Its .. Respondents
Principal Sec. Urban Development Dept and Ors WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1643 OF 2026
Sayyed Ibrahim Sayyed Hanif .. Petitioner
V/S.
State of Maharashtra Throu.Its .. Respondents
Principal Sec. Urban Development Dept and Ors WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1646 OF 2026
Raees Abdul Jalil Ansari .. Petitioner
V/S.
State of Maharashtra Throu. Its .. Respondents
Principal Sec. Urban Development
Dept and Ors WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5205 OF 2026
Maikash Mumtaz Ahmed Ansari .. Petitioner

2 of 5

varsha

17-wp-5195-2026.doc

V/S.

State of Maharashtra Throu. Its .. Respondents Principal Sec. Urban Development Dept and Ors

¶17

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1644 OF 2026

¶18

Dharmaji Shiddhappa Shinde .. Petitioner V/S.

¶19

State of Maharashtra Throu. Its .. Respondents Principal Sec. Urban Development Dept and Ors

¶20

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.1645 OF 2026

¶21

Chandan Jagrandhu Nayak .. Petitioner V/S.

¶22

State of Maharashtra Throu. Its .. Respondents Principal Sec. Urban Development Dept and Ors

¶23

Mr. F.N. Momin, for the Petitioners in all petitions.

¶24

Ms. Tanu Bhatia, for Respondents No. 2 and 3- Corporation.

¶25

Ms. G.R. Raghuwanshi, AGP, for Respondent/State in WP/5195/2026 and WP/1645/2026.

¶26

Ms. M.S. Bane, AGP, for Respondent/State in WP/5196/2026 and WP/1646/2026.

¶27

Ms. P.M.J. Deshpande, AGP, for Respondent/State in WP/5205/2026. Mr. B.V. Samant, Addl. GP, for Respondent/State in WP/5233/2026.

¶28

Mr. S.P. Kamble, AGP, for Respondent/State in WP/5235/2026.

¶29

Mr. A.I. Patel, Addl. GP, for Respondent/State in WP/1642/2026.

¶30

Mr. O.A. Chandurkar, AGP, for Respondent/State in WP/1643/2026.

¶31

Ms. Pooja Patil, AGP, for Respondent/State in WP/1644/2026.

3 of 5

varsha

17-wp-5195-2026.doc

CORAM : MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. DATE : 23RD APRIL 2026.

¶36

PC:

¶37

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.

¶38

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

¶39

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.

¶40

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.

¶41

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

4 of 5

varsha

17-wp-5195-2026.doc

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶46

(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.)

¶47

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶48

5 of 5

¶49

varsha

Raees Abdul Jalil Ansari v. State of Maharashtra Thro. Its Principal Secretary Urban Devp. Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raees Abdul Jalil Ansari v. State of Maharashtra Thro. Its Principal Secretary Urban Devp. Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

The Mogaveera Co-Operative Bank Ltd. vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Government Pleader

Icici Home Finance Company Ltd. and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr the Dist. Magistrate of Raigad

Sharad Ashok Agrawal vs Chief Manager and Authorised Officer Canara Bank and Ors.

Abdul Moid Babullah Khan vs State of Maharashtra Throu. Its Principal Sec. Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Sayyed Ibrahim Sayyed Hanif vs State of Maharashtra Throu. Its Principal Sec. Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Iifl Home Finance Ltd. vs the State of Maharashtra Thro. Assi. Govt. Pleader