JITENDRA CHAMPALAL SANGHVI AND ORS v. MAHARASHTRA HOUSING AND AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS
WP/12307/2026 · 2026-09-17
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 8864 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 8864 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
902 wp 12307 of 2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.12307 OF 2026 Jitendra Champalal Sanghvi and Ors. ... Petitioners versus Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and Ors.
… Respondents WITH ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.32117 OF 2026 M/s. Mukesh Steel through Maniben Raghnathmal Chandan … Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra and Ors. … Respondents WP No.12307 of 2026 Mr. R.D.Soni with Ms. Uma Sharma, Mr. Karl Vatcha i/by Mr. Sachin Chowdhari, for Petitioners. Mr. Vishal Kanade with Mr. Paresh Shah, Mr. Rubin Vakil, Mrs. Chhaya Parab, Ms. Meghna Mehta i/by M/s. Shah and Sanghavi, for Respondent No.3. Ms. Jaya Bagwe, for MHADA. WP(L) No.32117 of 2026 Mr. Piyush M. Shah with Mr. Deep Madnani, for Petitioner. Ms. Nazia Sheikh, AGP for State. Mr. Vishal Kanade with Mr. Paresh Shah, Mr. Rubin Vakil, Mrs. Chhaya Parab, Ms. Meghna Mehta i/by M/s. Shah and Sanghavi for Respondent Nos.6 to 9. Ms. Jaya Bagwe, for MHADA.
CORAM: N.J.JAMADAR, J.
DATE :
17 SEPTEMBER 2026 P.C.
1. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Having regard to the nature of the impugned order passed under Section 95A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, SSP 1/2 2026:BHC-AS:38130
902 wp 12307 of 2026.doc when this Court expressed its disinclination to entertain the Petition, especially in the light of an earlier order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 10 January 2023 in WP No.4564 of 2022, Mr. Soni, learned Counsel for the Petitioner prays for the directions in terms of prayer clause (d).
3. The substance of the apprehension of the Petitioners is that the project is likely to be handed over to another developer, and, in that eventuality, there is a distinct possibility that the plans may be revised and more shops may be provided on the ground floor.
4. If such an eventuality occurs, the lottery conducted by the Developer – Respondent No.3 for allotment of the four shops will not be binding on the Petitioners, and the Petitioners shall be entitled to agitate their claims for allotment of the shops on the ground floor in case more shops are constructed on the ground floor.
5. Subject to the aforesaid clarification, the Writ Petitions stand disposed.
( N.J.JAMADAR, J. ) SSP 2/2 Signed by: S.S.Phadke Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 18/09/2026 18:26:49