PRAJAKTA v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4355 OF 2025 PRAJAKTA SAGAR VARTAK SAGAR VARTAK Kesra Devi Somnath Gupta Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Petitioner ...Respondents _________ Mr. Shakil Ahmed with Ms. Babita Kesharwani and Ms. Prabha Yadav for Petitioner. Mr. S. B. Gore, AGP for State. Ms. Ayesha Pinto i/b. Sammya Partners for Respondent No.3. Ms. Ravleen Sabharwal with Ms. Aarushi Yadav for Respondent No.2/SRA. __________ CORAM: DATE: G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ. 03 DECEMBER 2025. P.C.
Learned counsel for respondent no.3 is unable to inform the Court as to how there is unauthorized occupation in the slum building constructed by respondent no.3, in respect of which a notice dated 26 November 2025 under Section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 has been issued by the SRA, in which the following schedule has been set out:-
SCHEDULE Unauthorized occupation of Gr. Floor + 7th floors Wing A, B, C, D, E & F of Composite Building 1, 2 & 3, Basement+ stilt+ Gr. Floor+ 15th floor of Rehab Building No. 4 (Wing A, B & C) in Indira Nagar Hutment Dwellers CHS Ltd. on the plot bearing C.S. No.11(pt) of Sion Koliwada Division in F/North Ward without obtaining Occupation Certificate from the SRA, Brihanmumbai.
We direct Respondent No. 3 to point out as to how such illegal occupants were inducted and why such illegal occupation was not intimated to the SRA, despite the lawful allotment of the tenements being made to those whose names are certified in Annexure-II with regard to the project in question.
At the request of learned counsel for respondent no.3, stand over for tomorrow i.e. 04 December 2025. (AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.) 03 December 2025
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 — s. 53(1).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 03 Dec 2025. The bench was AARTI SATHE, G S KULKARNI.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.