Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 1 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Atul Arun Kale & another; Vishal Subhash Parekar; Nuzrat Aziz Bobhde; Sameer Abdul Aziz Bobde; Seema Sudhir Acharya & others.
  • Respondents: State of Maharashtra and Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation (BNCMC).
  • Five writ petitions (Nos. 10833/2025, 10993/2025, 10994/2025, 6057/2026, 9089/2026) were consolidated as they raised identical issues concerning BNCMC’s road‑widening project.
  • BNCMC had issued letters/notices (dated 23‑07‑2025 and 31‑07‑2025) demanding production of documents and threatening demolition/possession, offering only Transferable Development Rights (TDR) instead of monetary compensation.
  • Petitioners alleged violation of Article 300A and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the Act).
  • Counsel for petitioners relied on a prior Bombay HC order dated 29 July 2026 in Kamla Devi Kumawat v. State of Maharashtra, which held that possession can be taken only after lawful determination and payment of compensation.
  • Respondent Municipal Corporation argued that the road‑widening project is of public interest and sought early possession, citing a Division Bench order allowing possession before compensation within four weeks.
  • The Court examined the rival submissions and found BNCMC’s actions arbitrary, noting that no proposal had been moved before the competent authority under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) and the 2013 Act.
  • The Court reiterated Supreme Court pronouncements that compensation cannot be imposed solely by TDR without consent and that property rights under Article 300A are constitutional rights.

Final Outcome

  • The Court applied the reasoning of the Kamla Devi Kumawat order and allowed all writ petitions.
  • Notices dated 10 Oct 2025 and 14 Nov 2025 (and the specific notices dated 23‑07‑2025 and 31‑07‑2025) were quashed and set aside.
  • BNCMC was directed to comply with the MRTP Act and the 2013 Act for acquisition, determination of compensation, pronouncement of award, and disbursal of compensation before taking possession.
  • Specific reliefs:
  • WP 10833/2025: Quash notices dated 23‑07‑2025 (Exh L) and 31‑07‑2025 (Exh M1).
  • WP 10993/2025: Quash first notice dated 23‑07‑2025 (Exh I) and second notice dated 31‑07‑2025 (Exh K).
  • WP 10994/2025: Quash first notice dated 23‑07‑2025 (Exh J) and second notice dated 31‑07‑2025 (Exh L).
  • WP 6057/2026: Mandamus directing the State of Maharashtra to issue the requisite notification/declaration under the 2013 Act (Section 78 of the M.M.C. Act, 1949) for acquisition of Municipal House No. 65 (C.S. No. 2167) and to remit compensation to the petitioner.
  • WP 9089/2026: Mandamus directing the State to issue the requisite notification/declaration for acquisition of Municipal House Nos. 34/1/G/2, 34/1/G/3, 34/1/G/5, 34/2, 34/3, 34/5, 34/6, 34/8, 34/9 (Acharya Building, C.S. Nos. 2235‑2237) and to remit compensation.
  • Upon receipt of compensation, petitioners must hand over the subject lands and structures within four weeks.
  • Petitioners retain the right to challenge the quantum of compensation, but possession shall not be delayed on that ground.
  • The order clarifies that it does not affect any structures that may be illegal on the subject lands.

Topics: Land Acquisition, Property Rights