Bombay High Court
Pearl Realtors Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of Maharashtra Through The Urban ... on 5 May, 2026
Author: Manish Pitale
Bench: Manish Pitale
1
903-wpl-35473-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 35473 OF 2025
Pearl Realtors Private Limited ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Another ... Respondents
******
Digitally
signed by Mr. Drupad Patil a/w. Mr. Dheeraj Patil and Ms. Srushti Chalake, for the
VISHAL
VISHAL SUBHASH
SUBHASH PAREKAR Petitioner.
PAREKAR Date:
2026.05.06
18:31:01
+0530
Mr. Vikrant Parshurami, AGP, for the State.
Mr. Akshay Shinde, for respondent No. 2- MMRDA.
******
CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
DATE : 5th MAY, 2026
P.C. :
1. In this petition on 9th April, 2026 we had passed the following order:
. In this petition, on 25th February 2026, this Court had passed the following order :
"In the light of notice being issued in this writ petition on 17th January 2026, indicating that the petition can be disposed of at the admission stage, the respondents have appeared through counsel. The respondent No.1-State is represented by the learned AGP. Mr. Shinde, learned counsel represents respondent No.2-Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA).
2. We find from the documents placed on record, particularly, order dated 4th January 2023 passed in earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner bearing Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 5302 of 2020, as also document at Exhibit 'K1' at page 155 of the petition, that the respondent No.2-MMRDA itself had worked out the quantum of monetary compensation payable to the petitioner on the basis of acquisition of the Vishal Parekar ....1 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2026 01:37:06 ::: 2 903-wpl-35473-2025.doc subject land by negotiation. Exhibit 'K1' represents the offer of the proposal of the respondent No.2- MMRDA. The document at Exhibit 'F' dated 31 st January 2019 issued by the respondent No.2- MMRDA itself clearly shows that the said respondent took unilateral possession of the subject land for the purpose of construction of road. The said development work of construction of road, as on today, is hampered, due to the portion of land belonging to the petitioner, not being acquired and the process not being taken to its logical conclusion.
3. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-MMRDA submits that he will take instructions in the matter, particularly, with regard to the claim of the petitioner, for granting interest for the period from 2019 onwards till the amount of compensation is paid to the petitioner.
4. The respondent No.2-MMRDA may file its reply affidavit within two weeks from today, but we make it clear that in the light of the documents available on record, we would be inclined to consider interim direction in terms of prayer clause (d), as it pertains to the offer made by the respondent No.2-MMRDA itself, as per Exhibit 'K1' filed with the writ petition.
5. List the petition under the caption 'for directions' on 17th March 2026."
2. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2-MMRDA, it is not disputed that the said respondent took possession of the subject property of the petitioner in the year 2019 itself. It is also conceded that from the very inception, the petitioner had agreed for acquisition of the subject land by way of private agreement.
3. As noted in the above quoted order of this Court, in terms of Exhibit 'K1' at page 155, the said respondent itself had calculated the amount payable for the subject land towards compensation at Rs.30,90,88,298/-.
4. In that light, we had expected the respondent No.2- MMRDA to take expeditious steps in the matter and to apprise this Court, as to in what manner the said respondent would be considering the claim of the petitioner for payment of interest on the compensation amount, for having deprived the petitioner of enjoyment of its land from the year 2019 onwards, in the absence of Vishal Parekar ....2 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2026 01:37:06 ::: 3 903-wpl-35473-2025.doc payment of compensation. It is to be noted that compensation has not been paid till date.
5. We find that the contents of paragraphs 9 to 14 of the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No.2- MMRDA, indicate typical bureaucratic approach of the papers being pushed from one table to the other and presently being placed before the Deputy Director of Town Planning, for further consideration regarding valuation and the claim of the petitioner towards the interest component. If this Court does not pass appropriate orders, such pushing of papers and files will continue ad-nauseam in the office of respondent No.2- MMRDA.
6. We find substance in the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that in such a situation, this Court may consider granting interim relief in terms of prayer clause
(d), by directing respondent No.2-MMRDA to release atleast the aforementioned amount of Rs.30,90,88,298/- to the petitioner, in terms of Exhibit 'K1' at page 155.
7. We are of the opinion that while keeping the writ petition pending, it would be appropriate that the aforesaid amount is first deposited in this Court forthwith and that further action on the part of respondent No.2- MMRDA is taken expeditiously.
8. In view of the above, respondent No.2-MMRDA is directed to deposit Rs.30,90,88,298/- before the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court, within two weeks from today.
9. The respondent No.2-MMRDA and its officers are directed to expeditiously take further steps as regards the process indicated in paragraph 14 of the reply affidavit, including decision on the claim of interest component of the petitioner.
10. On the next date of listing, the respondent No.2- MMRDA shall apprise this Court about the progress with regard to the said process. We expect the final decision to be taken at the earliest and preferably before the next date of listing.
11. On the next date of listing, we shall also consider as to whether the petitioner is to be permitted to withdraw the aforementioned amount.
12. List for further consideration on 30 th April 2026, to be Vishal Parekar ....3 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2026 01:37:06 ::: 4 903-wpl-35473-2025.doc included in the supplementary list.
13. At this stage, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for respondent No.2-MMRDA that if the process is to be expeditiously concluded, the responsible officers of respondent-State will also have to act expeditiously in the matter. The learned AGP appearing on behalf of the respondent-State assures this Court that necessary steps shall be taken expeditiously."
2. When the petition is called out for consideration today the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2- Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) submitted that further time would be required to take steps in the matter and the final decision could be taken and the matter would be reported back to this Court.
3. It was submitted that the prayer for withdrawal of the amount made on behalf of the petitioner may not be granted, for the reason that the amount deposited in this Court in pursuance of the order dated 9 th April, 2026, is only a tentative amount based on internal communications exchanged between the MMRDA officials.
4. It is further submitted as per that Section 77 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the Act, 2013), only after the acquisition process is completed which culminates into an award that the compensation can be disbursed.
Vishal Parekar ....4 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2026 01:37:06 ::: 5 903-wpl-35473-2025.doc
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner is pressing for a direction to permit withdrawal of the amount deposited by respondent No. 2- MMRDA.
6. We have already noted in the above quoted order that acquisition of the subject property in the present case was admittedly by agreement. The respondent No. 2 MMRDA has not denied the aforesaid aspect of the matter.
It is also not denied that possession was unilaterally taken by the respondent No. 2 MMRDA in the light of the proposed acquisition of the subject property. In the face of such facts, respondent No. 2 MMRDA cannot be heard to say that the amount deposited in this Court may not be disbursed as the acquisition process is yet to culminate. The fault prima facie lies at the door of the respondent No. 2 MMRDA for which the petitioner has been suffering since the year 2019. The said respondent admits that the subject land is being utilized for construction of road.
7. In view of the above, we grant time of eight weeks to respondent No. 2 MMRDA to finalize the process and to report back to this Court.
8. We are convinced that it would be only in the interest of justice that the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited in this Court by respondent No. 2 MMRDA, in terms of order dated 9th April, 2026.
9. In view of the above, list this petition for further consideration on 15 th Vishal Parekar ....5 ::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2026 01:37:06 ::: 6 903-wpl-35473-2025.doc July, 2026.
10. In the meanwhile, the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court is directed to disburse the amount of Rs. 30,90,88,298/- deposited by respondent No. 2 MMRDA along with accrued interest if any to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
11. At this stage, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2- MMRDA prayed for stay of the aforesaid direction permitting the withdrawal of the amount.
12. In the light of the facts noted in the order dated 9 th April, 2026 and earlier orders passed by this Court as also the admitted position on facts revealed by the documents placed along with the petition we find no reason to grant the aforesaid prayer. Hence, the said prayer is rejected.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Vishal Parekar ....6
::: Uploaded on - 06/05/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2026 01:37:06 :::