Disposed¶27

Mani Mulji Padaya v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC24 Feb 2026WP/1877/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MHADA tenement transfer challenge; writ petition disposed; NoC under MHADA Circular not obtained; deceased original allottee's widow transferee; protection of minor daughter's (respondent No.4) interest before NOC for sale; Bombay High Court, Karnik & Modak JJ.; WP 1877/2024; Kandivali flat 305.91 sq. ft.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with directions to MHADA: before granting any NOC for disposal/sale of the suit flat by respondent No.3, MHADA shall consider the interest of respondent No.4; the order to be communicated to respondent No.3 and endorsed in MHADA records. ¶27

Mani Mulji Padaya vs the State of Maharashtra — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the transfer of the subject tenement by MHADA in favour of respondent No.3 was illegal/contrary to law because the NoC of Mani Mulji Padaya, as required by the MHADA Circular, had not been obtained.

¶21

Court's answer

The Court declined to interfere with the MHADA allotment/transfer; the allotment should not be disturbed at the instance of the allottee's brother, who cannot claim a right, especially as the allottee's minor daughter resides in the premises and needs protection.

¶22

Ratio / Principle

Though matrimonial proceedings were alleged to be pending, there was nothing on record to indicate closure of such matrimonial proceedings against respondent No.3.

¶22

Key takeaways

If respondent No.3 proposes to dispose of or sell the suit flat, MHADA and its authorities shall take into consideration the interest of respondent No.4 (the minor daughter) before granting any NOC; the order is to be communicated to respondent No.3 and an endorsement made in MHADA records.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No. 1877 of 2024, decided 16th March 2026 by M. S. Karnik and S. M. Modak, JJ.: Petition by the mother (later represented by her LR son, brother of the original allottee) challenging MHADA's transfer of a 305.91 sq. ft. Kandivali tenement to the deceased allottee's widow (respondent No.3) without the NoC said to be required by the MHADA Circular. The Court declined to interfere: nothing on record showed closure of matrimonial proceedings against respondent No.3, the petitioner-brother could not claim a right in the tenement, and the allottee's 11-year-old daughter (respondent No.4) residing there needed protection. Petition disposed of with a direction that if respondent No.3 proposes to sell or dispose of the flat, MHADA shall consider respondent No.4's interest before granting any NOC, with endorsement in MHADA records and communication of the order to respondent No.3.

¶1

20-wp 1877-24.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1877 OF 2024

¶4

Mani Mulji Padaya (since deceased) through his LRs. … Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents

¶7

¶8

Mr. Amey C. Sawant for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Jagdish G. Aradwad (Reddy) for Respondent No.2-MHADA. Smt. Nazia Sheikh, AGP for the Respondent-State.

¶10

¶11

CORAM : M. S. KARNIK AND

¶12

S. M. MODAK, JJ.

¶13

DATED : 16th MARCH, 2026.

¶14

P.C. :

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶16

It is the grievance of the petitioner that the MHADA had illegally

¶17

transferred the subject tenement in favour of respondent No.3, who is daughter-in-law of the original petitioner. The tenement in question, a flat admeasuring 305.91 sq. ft., situated at Kandivali, was allotted by the MHADA to the original allottee, who was the son of the original petitioner Mani Mulji Padaya. After the death of the original allottee, the said flat was transferred in favour of respondent No.3-Maithily Vasant Padaya, who

¶18

is the wife of original allottee. Respondent No.4 is the 11 years old daughter of respondent No.3 and original allottee.

¶19

Amk 1/3

¶20

20-wp 1877-24.doc

¶21

Mani Mulji Padaya, since deceased, was the mother of the original allottee who filed the present petition challenging the transfer of the subject tenement in favour of respondent No.3 i.e. her daughter-in-law, contending that the NoC of Mani Mulji Padaya, as required by the Circular of MHADA had not been obtained. During the pendency of this petition, Mani Mulji Padaya expired. Therefore, this petition is now being prosecuted through her son who was permitted to be brought on record. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there was some matrimonial disputes pending between respondent No.3-Maithily and her husband i.e. original allottee. In such view of the matter, it is the contention that the transfer made by the MHADA is completely contrary to the provisions of the law.

¶22

We are not inclined to interfere in this petition in the facts of this case. Mani Mulji Padaya has expired during the pendency of this petition. Though it is contended that the matrimonial proceedings were pending, there is nothing on record to indicate that there was closure of such matrimonial proceedings against the respondent No.3. Respondent No.4 is the 11 years old daughter of respondent No.3. In our opinion the allotment made should not be interfered with at the instance of the allottee’s brother who cannot claim a right and moreover the allottee’s daughter is residing in the premises who needs to be protected.

¶23

Amk 2/3

¶24

20-wp 1877-24.doc

¶25

In respect of the petitioner, who is a brother of the original allottee and who is the legal heir of the original petitioner Mani Mulji Padaya, learned counsel candidly submitted that the petitioner is really now concerned with safeguard of the rights of respondent No.4 in the suit flat since she is a grand-daughter of Mani Mulji Padaya. The concern is genuine and the approach is fair. Such concern can be taken care of. None for respondent No.3 though duly served.

¶26

This petition can be disposed of with a direction to the MHADA that in the event the respondent No.3 proposes to dispose of or sell the suit flat, MHADA and its authorities shall take into consideration the interest of respondent No.4 before granting any NOC. Such order be communicated to respondent No.3. Necessary endorsement be made in records of MHADA so far as the suit flat is concerned.

¶27

With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of.

¶28

(S. M. MODAK, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶29

Amk 3/3

Mani Mulji Padaya v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mani Mulji Padaya v. the State of Maharashtra

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

Noor Saba Firoz Khan and Anr. vs Late Jeet Bhikarao through (LoA) Sayed Muntazir Mehdi and 6 Ors.

Avtar Singh Sethi vs State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader (O.S.)

Avtar Singh Sethi vs State of Maharashtra through Government Pleader (O.S.)

Jaskaran Singh Dayal Singh Anand vs S P Associates, Builders and Developers

Sushine Builders and Developers a Partnership Firm vs the Chief Executive Officer Slum Rehabilitation Authority

Rajesh Mohanalal Rathod vs the State of Maharashtra through the Government Pleader