Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Order Date: 16 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: Suresh Devchand Shah, Jitendra Devchand Shah, Atul Devchand Shah (collectively the Shah brothers), owners of Survey No.153/1 (Old Survey No.392/1), 58.80 Ares land in Village Navghar, District Thane.
  • Respondents: State of Maharashtra; Collector and Competent Authority, Urban Land Agglomeration, Thane; The Tahsildar, Mira‑Bhayandar; Mira Bhayander Municipal Corporation; M/s. Raj Project and Infrastructure.
  • Historical background:
  • Original owners (Caroline Jasin Rebello et al.) held 65.30 Ares; 3,026 sq m declared surplus under Section 8(4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (ULC Act) on 17 Feb 1982.
  • 8 June 2005: Respondent 2 issued Notification under Section 10(1) of ULC Act listing vacant land exceeding ceiling.
  • 23 April 2007: Exemption Order under Section 20 granted for 210 sq m, with conditions to commence construction within one year and complete within three years (Conditions 5, 13, 17).
  • 7 July 2007: Notification under Section 10(3) declared vesting of the 3,026 sq m as deemed acquisition by the State.
  • 14 Nov 2007: Notice under Section 10(5) demanded surrender of possession within 20 days.
  • 29 Nov 2007: ULC Act repealed by Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999; Section 3 saving clause preserved existing exemptions and State‑taken possession.
  • 11 Nov 2008: Original owners filed Writ Petition 441 of 2009 seeking quash of the 2005, 2007 notifications and restraining further action.
  • 18 Nov 2009: Bombay High Court allowed the petition, held exemption deemed withdrawn, declared all further proceedings under ULC Act abated, and made the order absolute.
  • Post‑2009 actions:
  • 1 Dec 2008: State issued communication directing Deputy Collectors to record a remark in the “Other Rights” column of 7/12 extracts for lands with pending Section 20 schemes.
  • 26 Mar 2009 & 5 Nov 2009: Further directions to record mutation entries and impose sale/transfer restrictions.
  • 3 Sept 2010: Notification confirming physical possession had not been taken and that the State‑ownership entry was cancelled.
  • 22 Dec 2015: Respondent 3 entered Mutation Entry No.2222 (without notice) in revenue records.
  • 3 Nov 2020: Respondent 2 directed Respondent 3 to note in “Other Rights” column that the obligation under Section 20 pertained to M/s. Raj Project and Infrastructure.
  • 2 July 2021: Respondent 3 entered Mutation Entry No.2760 reflecting the above remark.
  • 28 Sept 2022: Petitioners served legal notice demanding cancellation of the mutation entries and withdrawal of the 2020 communication, invoking the 2009 abatement order.
  • Petitioners argued that the 2009 judgment permanently abated all proceedings, making subsequent administrative actions void and infringing their vested rights.
  • Respondents contended that the exemption under Section 20 had not been formally withdrawn per Condition 17 and that the Repeal Act’s saving clause preserved the exemption’s validity.
  • The Court examined the doctrine of res judicata, prior Supreme Court pronouncements (Erach Boman Khavar v. Tukaram Shridhar Bhat; Hope Plantations Ltd. v. Taluk Land Board), and held that the 2009 order is final and binding.
  • The Court rejected the Respondents’ reliance on the saving clause and Condition 17, noting that the State itself had treated the exemption as withdrawn by issuing Section 10 notifications.
  • The Court also noted that the 2010 notification confirming no physical possession further supports the factual position.

Final Outcome

  • The Court quashed and set aside:
  • Order dated 03 Nov 2020 issued by the Collector & Competent Authority, Urban Land Agglomeration, Thane.
  • Order dated 01 Dec 2008 issued by the Deputy Secretary, State of Maharashtra.
  • The Court directed Respondent 2 and/or 3 to delete/cancel/rectify Mutation Entry No.2222 (dated 22 Dec 2015) and Mutation Entry No.2760 (dated 02 July 2021) from the revenue records of Survey No.153/1 (Old Survey No.392/1) and amalgamated Survey No.153/1A.
  • The Court declared that the petitioners are free to deal with the land in any manner, with no restriction arising from the Section 20 scheme (SR/1769), which has lapsed.
  • The Court also directed Respondent 4 to grant a Certificate of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) to petitioner No.4 for the parking building.
  • No order as to costs was made.

Topics: Land Regulation, Judicial Review, Real Estate