Hamidabi Sayyed Gani and Anr. vs Mumbai Metropolitian Regional Development Authority Mmrda Throu. Its Chief Town and and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Hamidabi Sayyed Gani and Anr. vs Mumbai Metropolitian Regional Development Authority Mmrda Throu. Its Chief Town and and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition raising the grievance that part of a structure constructed by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 (with Gram Panchayat permission) stands on the Petitioners' private plot ought to be entertained by the High Court, or whether the Petitioners must pursue their remedies before the Civil Court.

Court's answer

The Petitioners must first obtain a joint measurement of the properties of the Petitioners as well as Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

Ratio / Principle

After the joint measurement, identification and fixation of the boundaries must be done, to be followed by identification of the encroachment.

Key takeaways

An order for demolition of the identified encroachment and restoration of possession of the plot which the Petitioners have lost would have to be passed, and this would require oral and documentary evidence.ratio¶18
The Petitioners will have to approach the Civil Court, considering that the litigation is between two private parties regarding their private properties.ratio¶18
In view of the above, the Court had no reason to entertain the Petition.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Coram: Ravindra V. Ghuge & Abhay J. Mantri, JJ.; decision dated 17th February, 2026) dismissed Writ Petition No.2961 of 2025 filed by Hamidabi Sayyed Gani & Anr. against the Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority and others. The Petitioners' grievance was that part of a structure constructed by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 after obtaining permission from the concerned Gram Panchayat stood on their private plot. The Court held that the Petitioners must first obtain a joint measurement of the properties of both sides, followed by identification and fixation of boundaries and identification of the encroachment; an order for demolition of the identified encroachment and restoration of possession of the plot lost by the Petitioners would have to be passed, requiring oral and documentary evidence. Since the litigation was between two private parties regarding their private properties, the Petitioners were directed to approach the Civil Court. Recording the submission that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 had already instituted a Civil Suit for declaration (the Petitioners being Defendants therein, concerning development rights given by the Petitioners to Respondent No.2), the Court found no reason to entertain the Petition and dismissed it, keeping all contentions of all stakeholders in the pending Suit open.

Digitally signed by GAURI GAURI AMIT GAEKWAD AMIT Date: GAEKWAD 2026.02.20 14:45:33 +0530

150.WP-2961-2025.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.2961 OF 2025

Hamidabi Sayyed Gani & Anr. ….Petitioners Versus

Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority and Ors. ….Respondents

Mr. Prithviraj S. Gole for the Petitioners. Mr. Akshay Shinde for Respondent No.1. Ms. Leena Patil, AGP for Respondent No.4.

CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &

ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

DATE : 17^th FEBRUARY, 2026

P.C. :-

Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have constructed a structure

after obtaining permission from the concerned Gram Panchayat. The grievance of the Petitioners is that part of the construction is on their private plot.

We find that the Petitioners will first have to get a joint measurement of the properties of the Petitioners as well as Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Thereafter, identification and fixation of the boundaries will have to be done. This will be followed by identification of the encroachment. Thereafter, an order for

1 of 2

Gauri Gaekwad

150.WP-2961-2025.odt

demolition of the identified encroachment and restoration of possession of the plot which the Petitioners have lost, would have to be passed. This would require oral and documentary evidence. The Petitioners will have to approach the Civil Court, considering that the litigation is between two private parties regarding their private properties.

The learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 have already instituted a Civil Suit and that the Petitioners are Defendants in the said Suit. The Suit is for declaration, since the Petitioners gave development rights to Respondent No.2.

In view of the above, we have no reason to entertain

this Petition.

5. This Petition is, therefore, dismissed.

Needless to state, all the contentions of all the stakeholders in the pending Suit are kept open.

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)

(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)

2 of 2

Gauri Gaekwad