Paresh Talakshi Gala vs Assistant Commissioner N Ward Designated Officer Ward N — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Paresh Talakshi Gala vs Assistant Commissioner N Ward Designated Officer Ward N — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of: petitioners permitted to pursue the regularization application (pages 37 & 44) originally made by the erstwhile developer; respondent no.2 to call for necessary documents within 4 weeks, petitioners to furnish them within 2 weeks or explain the difficulty, and respondent no.2 to hear the petitioners and decide the application on its own merits in accordance with law; interim order vacated with all rights and contentions kept open, and any MCGM demolition not to prejudice the regularization application or the petitioners' claims against the developer/Society.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, who purchased the subject flat as far back as 2011 and whose erstwhile developer had sought regularization of the notice work, should be given an opportunity to pursue the regularization application that was rejected for want of documents (the new developer having failed to pursue it), the rejection being claimed as prejudicial to the petitioners' interest.

Court's answer

The petitioners, having purchased the flat as far back as 2011 with processing charges for regularization already paid by the erstwhile developer who pursued the application, should be given an opportunity to pursue the application for regularization; its rejection is prejudicial to the petitioners' interest.

Ratio / Principle

The application for regularization made by the erstwhile developer to the MCGM (at pages 37 & 44) is permitted to be pursued by the petitioners.

Key takeaways

Directions issued: respondent no.2 shall, within 4 weeks, call upon the petitioners to submit the documents it considers necessary to process the regularization application; the petitioners shall furnish the requisite documents within 2 weeks of such notice, failing which they may satisfy/explain to respondent no.2 the reason/difficulty in non-furnishing; respondent no.2 is then to hear the petitioners and pass appropriate orders on the application on its own merits and in accordance with law.ratio¶¶31
The interim order is vacated keeping all rights and contentions of the petitioners open.ratio¶¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction), M.S. Karnik & S.M. Modak, JJ., disposed of Writ Petition No. 409 of 2025 by order dated 6 March 2026. The petitioners, purchasers in occupation of the subject flat since 2011, challenged an MCGM order dated 28/06/2023 arising from a notice dated 25/05/2023 for removal of the 'notice work'. The erstwhile developer had sought regularization on 16/12/2022 before respondent no.2 (Executive Engineer, Building Proposal (E.S.), MCGM) and paid scrutiny fees of Rs.9,032/- on 09/02/2023, but the regularization application (paper-book pages 37 & 44) came to be rejected for want of documents because the new developer did not pursue it. Holding the rejection prejudicial to the petitioners' interest, the Court permitted the petitioners themselves to pursue that application, directed respondent no.2 to call for necessary documents within 4 weeks (petitioners to furnish within 2 weeks or explain the difficulty) and to decide the application on its own merits in accordance with law after hearing them. The interim order stood vacated with all rights and contentions open, and the Court clarified that any MCGM demolition of the dilapidated structure would not come in the way of the regularization application or the petitioners' claim to their rights in the flats against the developer/Society.

Ingale 26-wp-409-25.odt

Digitally signed URMILA by URMILAPRAMOD PRAMOD INGALE INGALE Date:2026.03.09 19:24:57 +0530

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

WRIT PETITION NO. 409 OF 2025

Paresh Talakshi Gala and anr. … Petitioners Versus Assistant Commissioner ‘N’ Ward Designated Officer Ward ‘N’ Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and ors. … Respondents

Mr. Viraj Pariekh a/w Mr. Vasim A. Shaikh, for the Petitioners. Ms. S.V. Tondwalkar i/b Ms.Komal Punjabi, for Respondent-BMC. Mr. Vishal Mhaiskar, Designated Officer, B&F Dept., N Ward, present.

Mr.Sanket Sakhalkar, Jr. Engg. B&F dept, N ward, present. Smt. Anupamaa Pawar, AGP for Respondent-State.

CORAM : M.S.KARNIK & S.M.MODAK, JJ.

DATE : 6^th MARCH 2026

P.C. :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned

counsel for the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (‘MCGM’, for short).

The challenge in this petition is to the order dated

28/06/2023 passed by the respondent no. 1- MCGM. The notice

1

Ingale 26-wp-409-25.odt

came to be issued to the petitioners by the MCGM on 25/05/2023 for removal of the notice work referred in the notice. The petitioners are the purchasers of the subject flat from the previous owner. The petitioners are in occupation of the flat since the year 2011. The agreement in respect thereof is on record.

The erstwhile developer made a proposal for regularization of the notice work on 16/12/2022 with the respondent no. 2- The Executive Engineer, Building Proposal (E.S.), MCGM.

Learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out to us that the developer by the letter dated 09/02/2023 had also paid the scrutiny fees of Rs.9,032/- and had requested the respondent no.2 to process the regularization and to issue the occupation certificate at the earliest. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that now there has been a change of developer and the members of the Society have entered into a Development Agreement with a new developer. The building is in a dilapidated condition according to the Society and is likely to be demolished.

However, since the structure of the petitioners is not regularized, the new developer is not willing to enter into any

2

Ingale 26-wp-409-25.odt

agreement with the petitioners. We must record that these are the subsequent events pursuant to the filing of the petition.

Suffice it to observe that the petitioners had purchased the subject flat as far back as in the year 2011. The necessary processing charges for regularization have been paid by the erstwhile developer, who was pursuing the application for regularization. Learned counsel for the MCGM submits that the regularization application which is at pages 37 and 44 was decided and rejected for want of certain documents. This happened because the new developer did not pursue the regularization application. In our view, the petitioners who have purchased the flat as far back as in the year 2011 should be given an opportunity to pursue the application for regularization. The rejection of the application for regularization is prejudicial to the interest of the petitioners.

In such a view of the matter, the application for regularization made by the erstwhile developer to the MCGM which is at pages 37 & 44 is permitted to be pursued by the petitioners.

3

Ingale 26-wp-409-25.odt

Respondent no.2, within a period of 4 weeks from today, shall call upon the petitioners to submit the documents which according to respondent no.2 are necessary to process the application for regularization.

The petitioners, within a period of 2 weeks from the date of such notice, shall furnish the requisite documents. If the petitioners are not in a position to furnish the documents, the petitioners to satisfy/explain to the respondent no.2 the reason/difficulty in non-furnishing the documents.

Respondent no.2 to hear the petitioners and then proceed to

pass appropriate orders on the application for regularization on its

own merits and in accordance with law.

The writ petition is disposed of.

The interim order is vacated keeping all rights and contentions of the petitioners open.

In case the MCGM proceeds to demolish the structure on the ground that the same is in dilapidated condition or for whatever reason, the same shall not come in the way of petitioners’

4

Ingale 26-wp-409-25.odt

application for regularization or their claim for entitlement of their rights in the subject flats against the developer/Society.

(S.M.MODAK, J.)

(M.S.KARNIK, J.)

5