Bombay High Court
Ravindra Ramprakash Gupta vs The City And Industrial Development ... on 7 April, 2026
Author: Ravindra V. Ghuge
Bench: Ravindra V. Ghuge
905-WP-15705-2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.15705 OF 2025
Ravinder Ram Prakash Gupta
Age- about 63 years, Occupation-Business,
Permanently residing at Having an office on
S. No.97/8, Village -Jasai, Taluka Uran,
District Raigad. ....Petitioner
Versus
1. The City & Industrial Development Corporation
of Maharashtra
Having an office at 1st floor, CIDCO Bhawan,
CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai.
Represented through its Managing Director.
2. The Controller of Unauthorised Constructions (South-2),
City & Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra
Having an office at CIDCO Bhawan,
CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai.
3. The Collector of District Raigad,
Having an office at Alibaug,
District-Raigad.
4. The Principal Secretary
Urban Development Department
State of Maharashtra
Having an office at Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 400 001.
5. The State of Maharashtra
Having an office at Mantralaya,
Mumbai - 400 001. ....Respondents
...
Mr. Rahul Thakur a/w. Ms. Vidhi Nayar, Ms. Nikita Patil and Mr.
Pravin P., Advocates for the Petitioner.
Sonali 1 of 9
::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2026 00:27:03 :::
905-WP-15705-2025.odt
Mr. Priyansh Jain a/w. Mr. Akshay Naik and Mr. Sagar Shetty,
Advocates for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - CIDCO.
Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. GP a/w. Ms. P. N. Diwan, AGP for the
Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 - State.
...
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE &
ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 25th MARCH, 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 07th APRIL, 2026
ORAL ORDER: (Per: Abhay J. Mantri, J.)
1. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties and perused the record.
2. The Petitioner challenges the issuance of the notice dated 16th July, 2025 under Section 53(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short the 'MRTP Act') and the order dated 15th October, 2025 passed pursuant to the said notice, by which the Petitioner was called upon to remove the unauthorized construction carried out on Survey No.92/2 and 98/1+4 of village Wahal. (for short, 'writ land' )
3. By an order dated 9th March, 2026, notices were issued to the Respondents and directed Respondent Nos. 1 -City and Sonali 2 of 9 ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2026 00:27:03 ::: 905-WP-15705-2025.odt Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra (for short, the 'CIDCO') to establish that the writ land belongs to it and that the Petitioner is an illegal squatter on the said land. The said order reads as follows:
"1. Leave is granted to delete the name of Respondent No.5 through the Chief Secretary. Deletion be carried out forthwith.
2. Issue notice to the Respondents. The learned Advocate waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2-CIDCO and the learned Addl. GP waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent Nos. 3 to 5, State.
3. On the request of the learned Advocate for the CIDCO, this matter shall be listed in the urgent supplementary board on 24.03.2026.
4. The CIDCO shall establish before this Court that the writ land belongs to CIDCO and that the Petitioner is an illegal squatter, as contended on instructions."
(Emphasis added)
4. In response to the said order, the learned Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, CIDCO, produced a compilation of proceedings (totalling 19 pages) initiated under Section 53(1) (a) of the MRTP Act along with the order passed thereon. The same is taken on record and marked as 'X-1' for identification purposes. The learned Advocate submitted that the compilation comprises the notice under Section 53(1)(a) of the MRTP Act, photographs of the Sonali 3 of 9 ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2026 00:27:04 ::: 905-WP-15705-2025.odt structure, and the order passed pursuant to the said notice. However, he fairly submitted that CIDCO has neither acquired the writ land nor does the same vest in CIDCO. But he contended that the Petitioner carried out the unauthorised construction without obtaining the necessary permission from CIDCO, the planning authority; therefore, in its capacity as the Planning Authority, CIDCO issued the impugned notice and passed the order pursuant thereto.
5. On the other hand, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner vehemently argued that the Petitioner purchased the writ land in the year 1990. Thereafter, in 2014, he obtained a 'No Objection Certificate' from the Gram Panchayat, Jasai, to construct the warehouse, service centre, workshop, and Weighing Scale ('Vajan Kata') on the writ land and accordingly, erected the service centre, and since then, he has been in possession of the same. He further contended that the land does not belong to CIDCO; therefore, CIDCO has no authority to issue the impugned notice. Consequently, he submitted that the issuance of the notice is illegal and void, and on that ground alone, the said notice and order are liable to be quashed and set aside.
Sonali 4 of 9
::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2026 00:27:04 :::
905-WP-15705-2025.odt
6. Having heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record, it is apparent that, undisputedly, the Petitioner is the owner of the writ land. The said land has neither been acquired by nor vested in CIDCO. However, by virtue of the Government Notification dated 20th March, 1971, CIDCO was designated as the New Town Development Authority for Navi Mumbai 56 years ago.
7. It is also not in dispute that the structure has been in existence on the writ land since 2014. Furthermore, the communication dated 8th November, 2019, reveals that the Petitioner requested the Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition), Revenue and Forest Department, not to include the writ land in the acquisition proceedings. Pursuant to the said application, the Petitioner was called for hearings on 21st November, 2019, 10th December, 2019, 27th January, 2020, and finally on 17 th February, 2020. However, the writ land was never acquired.
8. On 16th July, 2025, Respondent No. 1- CIDCO issued the impugned notice, which the Petitioner replied to, after being granted an opportunity to be heard by an order dated 15th October, 2025, the Competent Authority- the Controller of Unauthorised Sonali 5 of 9 ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2026 00:27:04 ::: 905-WP-15705-2025.odt Constructions and Authorised Officer of CIDCO passed the order, holding that the construction on the writ land is unauthorised and directing its removal.
9. Aggrieved by the said order, the Petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction by filing this Petition on 3rd November, 2025. As per the circulation, the matter was to be listed on 25 th November, 2025. Accordingly, the Petitioner served a copy of the Petition, Paper- Book on Respondent No. 1-CIDCO and duly informed them that the matter was circulated on that date. Despite the service of the Petition and the intimation of the hearing date, on 17 th November, 2025, Respondent No.1-CIDCO proceeded to demolish the structure.
10. Pursuant to the impugned notice and order, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 demolished the structure in question on 17 th November, 2025.
11. The learned Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that, pursuant to the impugned notice and order, the Respondents demolished the structure standing on the writ land on 17th November, 2025 and therefore, this Petition has been rendered Sonali 6 of 9 ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2026 00:27:04 ::: 905-WP-15705-2025.odt infructuous. In response, the learned Advocate for the Petitioner does not dispute the demolition of the structure on the aforesaid date. However, he strenuously argued that despite the pendency of the matter before this Court and with full knowledge that it had been circulated on 25th November, 2025, the Respondents proceeded with the demolition. Furthermore, the Respondents had been aware of the structure's existence for a considerable time. He alleged that in the year 2019, the Respondents exerted pressure on the Petitioner to hand over the writ land to them for a proposed logistics park project. Upon the Petitioner's refusal to consent, the Respondents, with mala fide intention and instead of following the due process of law for acquisition, issued the impugned notice and initiated demolition. The Respondents' said action was high-handed and coercive; as such, he urged that the Petitioner is entitled to compensation for the same.
12. In the above backdrop, it is prima facie apparent that the Respondents, despite having knowledge of the filing and circulation of the Writ Petition by the Petitioner, demolished the structure standing on the writ land without awaiting the hearing of the matter. This itself indicates that the action prima facie appears Sonali 7 of 9 ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2026 00:27:04 ::: 905-WP-15705-2025.odt high-handed, especially when the Respondents had been aware of the existence of the structure since 2019, and the impugned order had been passed long before, on 15th October, 2025.
13. In such circumstances, even if the challenge to the impugned notice and order may appear to have become infructuous, the Petitioner cannot be non-suited on the basis of a high-handed action of CIDCO. We record that the said demolition of the structure would not neutralise the rights and contentions of the Petitioner set out in this Petition, would remain live. As such, to ascertain the controversy between the parties, we deem it appropriate to keep all points open.
14. Needless to clarify that, if the Respondent CIDCO suffer an adverse conclusion in this Petition, they shall be liable to reconstruct the structure on the writ land and indemnify the Petitioner for the loss of average monthly income derived from the said business, from the date of demolition till such order of this Court. As such, the actions of Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall be subject to the final outcome of this Writ Petition.
Sonali 8 of 9
::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2026 00:27:04 :::
905-WP-15705-2025.odt
15. In view of the above, the Respondents shall file their affidavit in reply on or before 6th May, 2026.
16. List this Petition on 17th June, 2026.
(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.) Digitally signed by SONALI SONALI MILIND MILIND PATIL PATIL Date:
2026.04.07 15:54:34 +0530 Sonali 9 of 9 ::: Uploaded on - 07/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 08/04/2026 00:27:04 :::