Disposed¶55

Riyazuddin Babu Hussain Ansari v. State of Maharashtra Throu. Its Principal Sec. Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Bombay HC28 Jan 2026WP/961/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Demolition of shops/galas for widening of road; non-payment of compensation; Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation; State of Maharashtra; representations of December 2025/January 2026; direction to decide representations in accordance with law within eight weeks; writ petitions disposed; pending applications disposed; Bombay High Court; 21.04.2026; WRIT PETITION NO.4896 OF 2026 and connected writ petitions; F.N. Momin for petitioners; Tanu Bhatia for Respondents No. 2 and 3 - Corporation; AGPs for Respondent-State.

What did the court decide?

Respondent No.2 (Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation) directed to decide the petitioners' representations in accordance with law within eight weeks; pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ¶55

Riyazuddin Babu Hussain Ansari vs State of Maharashtra Throu. Its Principal Sec. Urban Development Dept and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶55

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioners, whose shops/galas were demolished for widening of road without payment of compensation, are entitled to redressal/compensation +1 more

¶51

Ratio / Principle

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 can be decided within a time bound period so that the grievances of the petitioners can be addressed.

¶54

Key takeaways

The writ petitions are disposed of by directing respondent No.2 to decide the representations submitted by the petitioners.ratio¶55
Respondent No.2 is to decide the representations in accordance with law and within a period of eight weeks.ratio¶60

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat, JJ.), by order dated 21 April 2026, disposed of fourteen connected writ petitions (W.P. Nos. 4896, 4909, 4910, 717, 721, 719, 729, 724, 723, 961, 970, 1265, 1270 and 1269 of 2026) in which the petitioners complained that their shops/galas were demolished for widening of road and that they had not been paid compensation. The petitioners had earlier submitted representations to respondent No.2, the Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation, in December 2025/January 2026. Finding substance in the Municipal Corporation's contention that the representations could be decided within a time bound period, the Court directed respondent No.2 to decide the representations in accordance with law within eight weeks and disposed of the writ petitions, along with pending applications, if any. The question of entitlement to compensation was not adjudicated; the petitioners' grievances were left to be addressed through the time-bound decision on their representations.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.4896 OF 2026

¶5

VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR

¶6

Digitally signed by VISHAL SUBHASH PAREKAR Date: 2026.04.21 17:40:53 +0530

¶7

Rajaram Somaru Gupta … Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Others … Respondents

¶8

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.4909 OF 2026 (Sr.No.14) Mohammed Kadar Haji V.K. … Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Others … Respondents

¶9

WITH

¶10

WRIT PETITION NO.4910 OF 2026 (Sr.No.15) Uma Sadashiv Patil … Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Others … Respondents

¶11

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.717 OF 2026 (Sr.No.76) Harshad Ambalal Patel … Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Others … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.721 OF 2026 Mujeeb Mian Rais Mian Shaikh … Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Others … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.719 OF 2026 Ansari Ansar Ali Ameer Ali … Petitioner Vishal Parekar

….1

Versus State of Maharashtra and Others

¶16

… Respondents

¶17

WITH

¶18

WRIT PETITION NO.729 OF 2026 Abdul Kadar Nooji … Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Others … Respondents

¶19

WITH

¶20

WRIT PETITION NO.724 OF 2026 Chandankumar Ramjibhai Shah … Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Others … Respondents

¶21

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.723 OF 2026

¶22

Mohammad Ibrahim Mehmood Miyan Mujahid and Another … Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra and Others … Respondents

¶23

WITH WRIT PETITION NO.961 OF 2026 (Sr.No.78)

¶24

Riyazuddin Babu Hussain Ansari … Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Others … Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.970 OF 2026 (Sr.No.79) Nazmeen Habib Khan … Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Others … Respondents

¶25

WITH

¶26

WRIT PETITION NO.1265 OF 2026 (Sr.No.83)

Vishal Parekar

….2

Shabbir Yaqoob Ghanchi … Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Others … Respondents

¶32

WITH

¶33

WRIT PETITION NO.1270 OF 2026

¶34

Shaukat Ali Mohd. Ali Shaikh … Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Others … Respondents

¶35

WITH

¶36

WRIT PETITION NO.1269 OF 2026

¶37

Anjana Chandrakant Igewad … Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Others … Respondents

¶38

¶39

Mr. F.N. Momin, for the Petitioners.

¶40

Ms. Tanu Bhatia, for Respondents No. 2 and 3- Corporation. Smt. M.S. Bane, AGP for Respondent-State in WP No. 4896 of 2026, WP No. 717 of 2026 and WP No. 961 of 2026.

¶41

Mr. R.S. Pawar, AGP for Respondent-State in WP No. 4909 of 2026, WP No. 721 of 2026, WP No. 970 of 2026 and WP No. 1269 of 2026. Mr. O.A. Chandurkar, AGP in WP No. 4910 of 2026. Smt. P.M. Deshpande, AGP for Respondent-State in WP no. 719 of 2026. Smt. G.R. Raghuwanshi, for Respondent-State in WP no. 729 of 2026, WP No. 1265 of 2026 and WP No. 1270 of 2026.

¶42

Smt. Pooja Patil, AGP for Respondent-State in WP No. 724 of 2026.

¶43

Mr. Swapnil Kamble, for Respondent-State in WP no. 723 of 2026.

¶44

¶45

CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ. DATE : 21^st APRIL, 2026

Vishal Parekar

….3

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.

¶52

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

¶53

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 i.e. the officer of the said Municipal Corporation.

¶54

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 within a time bound period so that the grievances of the petitioners can be addressed.

¶55

In view of the above, the writ petitions are disposed of by directing the respondent No.2 to decide the representations submitted by the petitioners in

Vishal Parekar

….4

accordance with law and within a period of eight weeks from today.

¶61