B.Narayan M.Shetty vs the State of Maharashtra through Government Pleaders Office — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

B.Narayan M.Shetty vs the State of Maharashtra through Government Pleaders Office — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Substantive reliefs (mandamus for permanent alternative accommodation; recall of the notice dated 11 August 2016) were not granted. Petition disposed of keeping open all rights and contentions to be agitated in the pending civil suit (Long Cause Suit No. 504 of 2008, City Civil Court, Dindoshi); liberty to seek immediate/interim relief from the Civil Court; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking mandamus against MHADA for permanent alternative accommodation (and recall of the notice dated 11 August 2016 describing the Petitioner as an encroacher) should be entertained when the same dispute is the subject of a pending civil suit and disputed questions of fact arise. +1 more

Court's answer

In the facts and circumstances, disputed questions of fact are clearly involved and the Petitioner has rightly availed the remedy of a civil suit; merely invoking Articles 19 and 21 despite the pending suit, the Court is not inclined to entertain the present Petition.

Ratio / Principle

The Petitioner is at liberty to file an appropriate application in the pending civil suit for any immediate grievance regarding eviction or other relief, and such application shall be considered and decided by the Civil Court after hearing all concerned parties.

Key takeaways

The Petition is disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the Petitioner to be agitated in the pending civil suit; no order as to costs.ratio¶5
Any interim or ad-interim application shall be decided by the Civil Court on its own merits, after hearing the parties, in accordance with law.ratio¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (G. S. Kulkarni & Aarti Sathe, JJ., Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No.2734 of 2025, disposed of on 02 February 2026. The Petitioner, described as an encroacher in a MHADA transit camp by communication dated 11 August 2016 (Exhibit “F”), sought mandamus directing MHADA to provide permanent alternative accommodation invoking Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to recall the said notice. The Court recorded that the Petitioner had already instituted Long Cause Suit No. 504 of 2008 against the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority before the City Civil Court at Dindoshi Division, Mumbai, which was pending with certain protective orders passed therein (as submitted by learned counsel). Holding that disputed questions of fact were clearly involved and that the remedy of a civil suit had been rightly availed, the Court declined to entertain the petition, disposed of it keeping open all rights and contentions to be agitated in the pending suit, granted liberty to apply to the Civil Court for any immediate grievance regarding eviction or other relief, and directed that interim or ad-interim applications be decided by the Civil Court on merits after hearing the parties. No order as to costs.

30-WP-2734-25.DOC

JYOTI RAJESH MANE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

Digitally signed by JYOTI RAJESH MANE Date: 2026.02.04 18:33:05 +0530

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.2734 OF 2025

B.Narayan M.Shetty ...Petitioner Versus

The State Of Maharashtra Through Government Pleaders Office & Ors. ...Respondents

Mr. Harshal Mirashi, for Petitioner.

Ms. Poonam Mital, AGP for Respondent No.1. – State.

Mr. P.G.Lad a/w. Ms. Sayali Apte, for Respondent No.2 - MHADA.

Ms. Anjali Ghuge for Respondent No.3 - BMC/MCGM.

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ. DATE: 02 FEBRUARY 2026

P.C.

The case of the Petitioner is that he is aggrieved by the action of MHADA, and more particularly by the communication dated 11th August 2016 (Exhibit “F” at page 43), whereby the Petitioner has been described as an encroacher in a transit camp. The present Petition is filed praying for the following substantive reliefs:

(a) Rule Nisi be granted.

(b) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction or order of this Hon'ble Court to the Respondent No.2 to provide permanent alternative accommodation to the Petitioners as per their policy and under article 19 and 21 of constitution of India..

Page 1 of 3

Mane

30-WP-2734-25.DOC

(c) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction or order of this Hon'ble Court to Respondent No.2 to work out proper solution for provide alternative permanent accommodation to the premises as per Law and/ or to protect their livelihood guaranteed under Constitution of India qua fundamental right.

d) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No 2 to recall decision by virtue of notice dated 11th of August, 2016 thereby justifying their policy and withdraw the same in the interest of justice being against the constitution of India.

We find from the record that the Petitioner has already instituted Long

Cause Suit No. 504 of 2008 against the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority before the City Civil Court at Dindoshi Division, Mumbai. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the said suit is pending and that certain protective orders have also been passed therein.

However, merely by invoking Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has filed the present Petition despite the pendency of the aforesaid civil suit. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that disputed questions of fact are clearly involved, and the Petitioner has rightly availed the remedy of a civil suit.

If the Petitioner has any immediate grievance in respect of eviction or any other relief, the Petitioner is at liberty to file an appropriate application in the pending civil suit. Such application shall be considered and decided by the Civil Court after hearing all concerned parties.

We are, therefore, not inclined to entertain the present Petition. The Petition is disposed of, keeping open all rights and contentions of the Petitioner to be agitated in the pending civil suit.

Page 2 of 3

Mane

30-WP-2734-25.DOC

Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.

Needless to observe that if any interim or ad-interim application is filed, the same shall be decided by the Civil Court on its own merits, after hearing the parties, in accordance with law.

(AARTI SATHE, J.)

(G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

Page 3 of 3

Mane