Dattatray Shankar Kshirsagar vs State of Maharashtra Thru. Secretary and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Dattatray Shankar Kshirsagar vs State of Maharashtra Thru. Secretary and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Respondent No.2 – Municipal Corporation directed to decide the petitioners' representations in accordance with law within eight weeks; pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, whose shops / galas were demolished for widening of road without payment of compensation, are entitled to redressal through decision of their representations by the Municipal Corporation.

Court's answer

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 in a time-bound period, so that the grievances of the petitioners could be addressed.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petitions were 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.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Manish Pitale & Shreeram V. Shirsat, JJ.), 29 April 2026 — Group of thirty-four writ petitions of 2026 led by Writ Petition No. 504 of 2026 (Vivek Vallabh Patil v. The State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secy., Urban Development Department and others). Grievance: petitioners' shops / galas were demolished for widening of road and compensation was not paid; respondent No.1 is the State and respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation and its officer. Petitioners had submitted representations to respondent No.2 – Municipal Corporation (moved December 2025 / January 2026) seeking redressal. The Court found substance in the Municipal Corporation's contention that the representations could be decided in a time-bound period, and disposed of the writ petitions by directing respondent No.2 to decide the representations in accordance with law within eight weeks; pending applications, if any, also stood disposed of. No statute or precedent was cited and no compensation amount was awarded.

908 & grp_WP_504_26 & grp.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 504 OF 2026

Vivek Vallabh Patil

… Petitioner

vs.

The State of Maharashtra, Thr. Principal Secy., Urban Development Department and others

… Respondents

WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 580 OF 2026 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 596 OF 2026 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 722 OF 2026 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2096 OF 2026 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2847 OF 2026 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4139 OF 2026 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4141 OF 2026 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4145 OF 2026 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4146 OF 2026 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4573 OF 2026 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4738 OF 2026 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4740 OF 2026 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4742 OF 2026 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4744 OF 2026 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4745 OF 2026 WITH

PRIYA Digitallysigned byPRIYAKAMBLI KAMBLI Date:2026.04.3018:05:26+0530

1/4

908 & grp_WP_504_26 & grp.doc

WRIT PETITION NO. 4781 OF 2026 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4800 OF 2026 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4807 OF 2026 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4808 OF 2026 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4811 OF 2026. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 4812 OF 2026 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5081 OF 2026 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5814 OF 2026 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5815 OF 2026 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5816 OF 2026 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5818 OF 2026 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5819 OF 2026 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5821 OF 2026 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5822 OF 2026 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5823 OF 2026 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5824 OF 2026 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5826 OF 2026 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5828 OF 2026

Mr. Farooque N. Momin a/w. Adv. Naofil A. Momin for petitioners in all petitions.

Mr. K. S. Thorat, ‘B’ Panel Advocate for respondent-State in WP/504/2026.

2/4

908 & grp_WP_504_26 & grp.doc

Mr. Rohan Sawant, ‘B’ Panel Advocate for respondent-State in WP/580/2026.

Ms. Apurva Thipsay, ‘B’ Panel Advocate for respondent-State in WP/596/2026. Mr. Ketan Joshi, ‘B’ Panel Advocate for respondent-State in WP/722/2026. Ms. S. D. Vyas, Addl. GP for respondent-State in WP/2096/2026. Ms. M. S. Bane, AGP for respondent-State in WP/2847/2026. Mr. N. C. Walimbe, Addl. GP for respondent-State in WP/4139/2026. Ms. G. R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for respondent-State in WP/4141/2026. Ms. P. M. J. Deshpande, AGP for respondent-State in WP/4145/2026. Mr. R. S. Pawar, AGP for respondent-State in WP/4146/2026.

Ms. Pooja Patil, AGP for respondent-State in WP/4573/2026.

Ms. N. M. Mehra, AGP for respondent-State in WP/4738/2026. Ms. R. A. Solanki, AGP for respondent-State in WP/4740/2026. Ms. M. P. Thakur, AGP for respondent-State in WP/4742/2026. Ms. P. J. Gavhane, AGP for respondent-State in WP/4744/2026. Mr. P. P. Kakade, Addl. GP for respondent-State in WP/4745/2026. Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. GP for respondent-State in WP/4781/2026. Ms. Neha S. Bhide, GP for respondent-State in WP/4800/2026. Mr. S. P. Kamble, AGP for respondent-State in WP/4807/2026. Ms. Priyanka Chavan, AGP for respondent-State in WP/4808/2026. Mr. A. A. Alaspurkar, AGP for respondent-State in WP/4811/2026. Ms. V. S. Nimbalkar, AGP for respondent-State in WP/4812/2026. Mr. B. V. Samant, Addl. GP for respondent-State in WP/5081/2026. Mr. A. I. Patel, Addl. GP for respondent-State in WP/5814/2026. Mr. Manish Pable, AGP for respondent-State in WP/5815/2026. Mr. Kankal, AGP for respondent-State in WP/5816/2026. Mr. A. C. Bhadang, AGP for respondent-State in WP/5818/2026. Ms. Devyani Deshmukh, AGP for respondent-State in WP/5819/2026. Mr. Hamid Mulla, AGP for respondent-State in WP/5821/2026. Mr. Y. D. Patil, AGP for respondent-State in WP/5822/2026.

Mr. A. K. Naik, AGP for respondent-State in WP/5823/2026.

Mr. A. R. Deolekar, AGP for respondent-State in WP/5824/2026.

Ms. Leena Patil, ‘B’ Panel Advocate for respondent-State in WP/5826/2026. Mr. V. G. Badgujar, AGP for respondent-State in WP/5828/2026.

Ms. Tanu N. Bhatia for respondent Nos.2 and 3 – Municipal Corporation in all petitions.

3/4

908 & grp_WP_504_26 & grp.doc

CORAM : MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ DATE : 29^th APRIL, 2026

P.C. :

. 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.

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

The 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 - officer of the said Municipal Corporation.

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 in a time-bound period, so that the grievances of the petitioners can be addressed.

In view of the above, 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 today.

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.)

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

Priya Kambli

4/4