Bombay High Court
M/S. Juhi Infra Build Llp, Thr. Partner ... vs Yasin Mahamudiya Patel on 9 October, 2025
2025:BHC-AS:43686
Neeta Sawant CRA 273 OF 2021-LFC
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.273 OF 2021
M/s. Juhi Infra Build LLP,
Through its Partner Sarguroh Ajaz Latif Khan ....Applicant
: Versus :
Yasin Mahamudiya Patel ....Respondent
___________________________________________________________
Mr. Drupad Patil with Mr. Namitkumar S. Pansare for the Applicant.
Mr. Gaurav Parkar, for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Rohit Sakhdeo, for Respondent Nos.2 to 5.
___________________________________________________________
CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.
Judgment Resd. On : 01 OCTOBER 2025.
Judgment Pron. On : 9 OCTOBER 2025.
JUDGMENT:
1) The Applicant has filed the present Civil Revision Application
challenging the order dated 21 January 2021 passed by the 3 rd Joint Civil
Judge Senior Division, Panvel, rejecting its Application at Exhibit-13
seeking rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (the Code).
Thursday, 9 October 2025
Neeta Sawant CRA 273 OF 2021-LFC
2) Plaintiff has instituted Special Civil Suit No. 619/2018
against CIDCO officials and Defendant Nos.5 to 7 seeking a direction for
allotment of land admeasuring 400.23 sq.mtrs. from the land allotted to
Defendant Nos.5 to 7 of 9300 sq.mtrs. on the ground that Plaintiff has
been possessing total land admeasuring 6200 sq.mtrs. at Plot no.10A,
Sector 39A, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai. Plaintiff has also sought
permanent injunction against CIDCO officials from issuing any
development permission in favour of Defendant Nos.5 to 7 till portion of
land admeasuring 400.23 sq.mtrs. is deducted from allotment made in the
name of Defendant Nos.5 to 7 and the same is allotted to Plaintiff.
3) Applicant, who is Defendant No.5 in the Suit, filed
Application at Exhibit-13 seeking rejection of Plaint under Order VII Rule
11 of the Code. The Application was opposed by the Plaintiff by filing his
reply. By impugned order dated 21 January 2021, the Trial Court has
proceeded to reject the Application for rejection of Plaint which has led to
filing of the present Civil Revision Application.
4) Mr. Drupad Patil, the learned counsel appearing for the
Applicant would submit that the Suit filed by Plaintiff is expressly barred
under the provisions of Section 149 of the Maharashtra Regional and
Town Planning Act, 1966 (the MRTP Act). That Plaintiff is essentially
challenging a decision taken by CIDCO to allot land admeasuring 9300
sq.mtrs. to Defendant Nos.5 to 7 and there is an express bar under section
149 of the MRTP Act for filing of the suit to challenge any order passed
by CIDCO. That even the second prayer for restraining CIDCO from
issuing Development Permission would be barred under the provision of
section 149 of the MRTP Act. That though provisions of section 149 of
the Act are not expressly quoted in Application at Exhibit-13, Applicant
Thursday, 9 October 2025
Neeta Sawant CRA 273 OF 2021-LFC
has specifically raised the issue of bar to maintainability of Suit
challenging decisions taken by CIDCO. That in any case, provisions of
section 149 of the MRTP Act were relied on during the course of
arguments before the Trial Court and that the same have been taken into
consideration by the Court while passing the impugned order. He would
rely upon judgment of this Court in Satish s/o Gayacharan Trivedi vs. Dr.
Gopal Ramnayaran Mundhada and others1 in support of his contention that
Civil Court has no jurisdiction to go into validity of permission granted by
Authority as per sanctioned plan.
5) Mr. Patil would further submit that a Plaint can be rejected
against some of the Defendants, and in support, he would rely upon
judgment of this Court in Chetana Shankar Manapure and another vs.
Bandu s/o Tanaji Barapatre2. He would submit that mere clever drafting of
the Plaint cannot be a ground for escaping specific bar for maintainability
of the Suit and in support he would rely upon judgement of the Apex
Court in N.V. Srinivasa Murthy and Ors. Vs. Mariyamma (Dead) by Proposed
LRs and Ors3. He would submit that once the Plaint is rejected against
Defendant Nos.1 to 4 (CIDCO) on account of express bar under Section
149 of the MRTP Act, no cause would survive against Defendant Nos.5 to
7. That the Trial Court has failed to appreciate the above position while
erroneously rejecting Applicant's prayer for rejection of Plaint. He would
accordingly pray for setting aside the impugned order.
6) Per-contra, Mr. Parkar, the learned counsel appearing for
Respondent no.1/Plaintiff would oppose the Application submitting that
Applicant never pleaded bar to maintainability of Suit under section 149
2015 (5) Mh.L.J. 463
2020 (4) Mh.L.J. 481
(2005) 5 SCC 548
Thursday, 9 October 2025
Neeta Sawant CRA 273 OF 2021-LFC
of MRTP Act. He would take me through the Application at Exhibit-13
to demonstrate that the plea of bar under section 149 of the MRTP Act
was never pleaded by the Applicant. He would accordingly submit that
Applicant cannot be permitted to raise the plea of bar under section 149
directly before this Court. He would further submit that even if
Applicant's case of bar under section 149 is accepted, there is specific
prayer in the Suit in clause-(c) for injunction against Defendants from
disturbing Plaintiff 's possession which prayer is not barred under section
149. That it is impermissible to reject part of the Plaint under Order VII
Rule 11 of the Code and in support, he would rely on judgment of the
Apex Court in Sejal Glass Ltd. Vs. Navilan Merchants Pvt. Ltd 4. He would
submit that the suit of the Plaintiff is based on his possessory rights and
the same is filed to protect the possession. That there is no bar under the
MRTP Act for maintainability of Suit for protection of possession of
land. In support of his contentions, Mr. Parkar would rely upon the
following judgments:
i. Madhav Prasad Aggarwal and another vs. Axis Bank Ltd. &
Another5;
ii. Capt. Lance Irwin Lobo and Anr. Vs Leila Almeida and Anr. 6;
iii. Anathula Sudhakar vs. P. Buchi Reddy (dead) by LRs & Others 7;
iv. D. Ramachandran vs. R.V. Janakiraman & others.8
7) Mr. Sakhdeo, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent
Nos.2 to 5 (CIDCO) has also been heard.
(2018) 11 SCC 780
2019 SCC OnLine SC 812
2018 SCC OnLine Bom 1504
(2008) 4 SCC 594
(1999) 3 SCC 267
Thursday, 9 October 2025
Neeta Sawant CRA 273 OF 2021-LFC
8) Rival contentions of the parties now fall for my consideration.
9) It is Plaintiff 's case that his father was owner of certain lands
at Village-Owe, Taluka- Panvel, District- Raigad. Similarly, there were
certain other lands at Village-Taloja Panchanand, Taluka- Panvel, District-
Raigad in the ownership of father of Plaintiff 's wife. The land of father-in-
law of the Plaintiff was acquired by CIDCO. It is Plaintiff 's case that
before CIDCO could develop the acquired land, Plaintiff started scrap
business in land at Survey Nos.14 and 15 admeasuring 6200 sq.mtrs. for
over 30 years. According to Plaintiff, the land of his father-in-law in
Survey Nos.14 and 15 has been allotted Plot No.10A in Sector 39A,
Node Kharghar by CIDCO which is totally admeasuring 9300 sq.mtrs.
Towards acquisition of land of his father, CIDCO has allotted Plot No. 58
admeasuring 200 sq.mtrs. and Plot No.65 admeasuring 200.23 sq.mtrs. in
Sector 27, Kharghar. Plaintiff is not happy with the allotment of Plot
Nos.58 and 65 which are occupied by a large banyan tree, public toilets
etc.
10) According to Plaintiff, Plot No.10A in Sector 39A, Kharghar has
been allotted to Defendant Nos.5 to 7 ignoring the position that Plaintiff
is occupying portion admeasuring 6200 sq.mtrs. for over 30 years. Plaintiff
accordingly desires allotment of total area of 400.23 sq.mtrs. out of Plot
No.10A in Sector 39A in place of Plot Nos.58 and 65 in Sector 27 allotted
to him. This is the broad grievance raised by the Plaintiff in the Suit.
11) In short, Plaintiff is essentially aggrieved by allotment of Plot
No.58 admeasuring 200 sq.mtrs. and Plot No.65 admeasuring 200.23
sq.mtrs. in Sector 27 which according to him are unusable. Since Plaintiff
Thursday, 9 October 2025
Neeta Sawant CRA 273 OF 2021-LFC
has been allegedly occupying portion of land admeasuring 6200 sq.mtrs.
out of total area of 9300 sq.mtrs. of Plot No.10A, Sector 39A, Kharghar
allotted to Defendant Nos.5 to 7, he desires allotment of area
admeasuring 400.23 sq.mtrs. by deducting the same from the area allotted
to Defendant Nos.5 to 7 from Plot No.10A. Defendant Nos.8 and 9 are
Plaintiff 's brothers who are also allegedly possessing the Suit land and are
accordingly impleaded as supporting Defendants in the Suit.
12) The Plaint filed by the Plaintiff contains complex pleadings.
Even the prayer made in the Plaint is not very easy to comprehend. It
requires repeated and detailed reading of the Plaint and prayers for
comprehending the real grounds of the Plaintiff. It would be
apposite to reproduce the prayers in the Plaint as under:
29) तरी वादींची मे. कोर्टाास विवनंती की,
ए) वादीचा दावा खचासहीत मंजूर करण्यात यावा.
बी) खारघर येथे भुखंड नं. 10 ए, सेक्र्टार 39 ए या भुखंडावर वादी यांचा
सुमारे 6200 चौरस मीर्टार या क्षेत्रावर सुमारे 30 वर्षाापासून शांततायम
अविवरत, विनरंतर असलेल्या ताबाकब्जाच्या क्षेत्रापैकी 400.23 चौ.मी क्षेत्र
प्रतितवादी नं. 5 ते 7 यांच्या एकूण 9300 चौ.मी क्षेत्रामधून कमी करून वादीस
वार्टाप करण्याचा आदेश व हुकूमनामा प्रतितवादी नं. 1 ते 4 याना करण्यात
यावा.
सी) खारघर येथे भुखंड नं. 10 ए, सेक्र्टार 39 ए या मुखंडावर वादी यांचा
सुमारे 6200 चौरस मीर्टार या क्षेत्रावर सुमारे 30 वर्षाापासून शांततायम
अविवरत, विनरंतर असलेल्या ताबाकब्जास च्या क्षेत्रापैकी 400.23 चौ.मी क्षेत्र
प्रतितवादी नं. 5 ते 7 यांच्या एकूण 9300 चौ.मी क्षेत्रामधून कमी करून वादीस
विमळे पय6त प्रतितवादी नं. 1 ते 4 यांनी 5 ते 7 यांना सदर भुखंडामध्ये
कोणत्याही प्रकारची बांधकाम परवानगी देवन
ू नये, त्रयस्थ इसमाचा हक्क व
अतिधकार विनमाण करू नये व इतर कोणाही व्यक्तीस वादीच्या हक्कास व
व्यवसायास अडथळा, हस्तक्षेप करू नये असा विनरंतर ताकदीचा आणिण
तुतातुत मनाई हुकूम वादीचे लाभात व्हावेत.
डी) या प्रस्तुत दाव्याचा खच वादीच्या लाभात करावा.
Thursday, 9 October 2025
Neeta Sawant CRA 273 OF 2021-LFC
इ) यानंतर वेळ पडल्यास दाव्यात दरू
ु स्ती करणेची मुभा असावी
एफ) आवश्यकते नुसार वेळो वेळी वादीस दाव्याचे कामी अतिधक माहीती व
साक्षी पुरावे देण्यास मुभा असावी.
जी) इतर योग्य व न्याय हुकूम वादीचे लाभात व्हावेत.
13) Thus, what Plaintiff essentially seeks is to deduct area of
400.23 sq.mtrs. from the land allotted to Defendant Nos.5 to 7 bearing
Plot No.10A, Sector 39A. The prayer is premised essentially on the
strength of alleged possession of Plaintiff of land admeasuring 6200
sq.mtrs. in Plot No.10A, Sector 39A. Though Plaintiff allegedly possess
land admeasuring 6200 sq.mtrs. in Plot No.10A, Sector 39A, he does not
seek allotment of entire portion of 6200 sq.mtrs. from CIDCO. The
allotment is restricted to only 400.23 sq.mtrs., which area corresponds to
cumulative area of Plot Nos.58 and 65 in Sector 27, Kharghar. It is
Plaintiff 's case that Plot No.58 admeasuring 200 sq.mtrs. has an old and
huge banyan tree and public toilet. That the banyan tree is worshipped by
locals making it difficult for Plaintiff to utilise Plot No.58 admeasuring
200 sq.mtrs. In respect of Plot No.65 admeasuring 200.23 sq.mtrs., there
are 8 to 10 large trees and a house of unknown person. Plaintiff thus
believes that in total land admeasuring 200 plus 200.23 equaling 400.23
sq.mtrs., there are trees and unauthorised structures on account of which
allotment made in favour of the Plaintiff is wrong. He desires that instead
of Plot Nos.58 and 65 in Sector 27, he deserves to be allotted land
admeasuring 400.23 sq.mtrs. from Plot No.10A, Sector 39A since he is
already possessing large portion of 6200 sq.mtrs. in that plot for his scrap
business.
14) The real grouse of the Plaintiff is about the alleged erroneous
decision taken by CIDCO about allotment of plot under 12.5% scheme.
Thursday, 9 October 2025
Neeta Sawant CRA 273 OF 2021-LFC
Plaintiff seeks shifting of the allotment from Plot Nos.58 and 65, Sector
27 to Plot No.10A, Sector 39A. The Suit thus challenges CIDCO's
decision/order regarding allotment of plot under 12.5% scheme. Plaintiff
believes that instead of allotting land admeasuring 400.23 sq.mtrs. in Plot
No.58 and 65 which is marred by huge banyan tree and other structures,
he deserves to be allotted land which he already possesses for the last 30
years.
15) Since the real grouse of the Plaintiff is about decision/order
of CIDCO relating to allotment of land, provisions of Section 149 of the
MRTP Act would be applicable. Section 149 of the MRTP Act provides
thus:
149. Finality of orders.- Save as otherwise expressly provided
in this Act, every order passed or direction issued by the State
Government or order passed or notice issued by any Regional Board,
Planning Authority or Development Authority under this Act shall be
final and shall not be questioned in any suit or other legal
proceedings.
16) Thus, no Suit can be filed challenging any order passed or
direction issued by State Government or order passed or notice issued
by any Regional Board or Planning Authority or Development Authority
under the MRTP Act. CIDCO is the Special Planning Authority for Navi
Mumbai Project notified under the provisions of the MRTP Act. The
decisions for allotment of land in Navi Mumbai are taken by CIDCO
under the provisions of New Bombay Disposal of Land Regulations,
1975, which are formulated under the provisions of section 159 of the
MRTP Act. CIDCO itself is a creature under the MRTP Act which is
Thursday, 9 October 2025
Neeta Sawant CRA 273 OF 2021-LFC
appointed as New Town Development Authority under the Act.
Therefore, decision to allot land to various persons whose lands are
acquired would essentially be a decision taken under the MRTP Act and
bar of jurisdiction under Section 149 for maintainability of the Suit
would clearly apply. The whole case of the Plaintiff as pleaded in the
Plaint is with regard to alleged erroneous allotment made to him of area
admeasuring 400.23 in Plot Nos.58 and 65 and he desires the land to be
allotted in Plot no.10A by deducting the same from allotment made to
Defendant Nos.5 to 7. This prayer of the Plaintiff in the suit would be
clearly barred under the provisions of Section 149 of the MRTP Act.
Thus, prayer clause (b) in the Suit, would be barred by the provisions of
section 149 of the MRTP Act.
17) Mr. Parkar has attempted to salvage the situation by
contending that prayer clause (c) in the Plaint is not barred by
provisions of Section 149 of the MRTP Act and that it is
impermissible to reject part of the Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the
Code. However, in prayer clause (c), Plaintiff has sought an injunction
against Defendants No.1 to 4 from granting any development permission
to Defendant Nos.5 to 7 for carrying out construction in Plot No.10A,
Sector 39A till CIDCO allots a portion of land admeasuring 400.23
sq.mtrs. to the Plaintiff by deducting the same from the land allotted to
Defendant Nos.5 to 7. The injunction is also for not obstructing Plaintiff 's
business in the Suit property. The development permission is granted
under the provisions of Section 44 of the MRTP Act. The obstruction, if
any, to Plaintiff 's business in Suit property can be done by CIDCO in
exercise of statutory powers under section 53 of the MRTP Act. Thus,
even prayer clause (c) of the Plaint is relatable to the provisions of the
Thursday, 9 October 2025
Neeta Sawant CRA 273 OF 2021-LFC
MRTP Act and therefore bar under section 149 of the MRTP Act would
apply even to prayer clause (c).
18) In my view, therefore the entire claim of the Plaintiff in the
suit is hit by section 149 of the MRTP Act. The whole Plaint therefore
deserves to be rejected by having recourse to the provisions of Order VII
Rule 11 of the Code.
19) Reliance by Mr. Patil on judgment of this Court in Satish
Gayacharan Trivedi (supra) is apposite, in which this Court has held that
Civil Court has no jurisdiction to go into the validity of permission issued
by the Planning Authority on account of provisions of Section 149 of the
MRTP Act. This Court held in para 12 as under:
According to the petitioner, there is no statutory remedy
available to him for challenging grant of sanction under section 45 of
the said Act. Hence, according to the petitioner, as the remedy of
appeal under section 47 of the said Act cannot be invoked by him,
the only remedy available was to approach the Civil Court. Under
section 149 of the said Act, every order passed or notice issued by
any Authority under said Act is final and cannot be questioned in any
suit or other legal proceedings. Non-availability of a statutory remedy
to challenge an order passed or notice issued under provisions of said
Act by itself cannot be held to be the determinative factor for
conferring jurisdiction on the Civil Court especially when such
jurisdiction has been expressly barred by provisions of section 149 of
the said Act. At this stage, provisions of section 51 of the said Act
need to be noticed. Said provision empowers the Planning Authority
to revoke or modify any permission granted or deemed to be granted
under the said Act to develop land. As held by the Division Bench in
Digambar Sakharam Tambolkar vs. Pune Municipal Corporation
and others, 1987 Mh.L.J. 419, the expression "permission granted
under this Act or any other law" is wide enough to cover all kinds of
permission granted to develop land. A person aggrieved by any
permission to develop land can always move the Planning Authority
to revoke or modify such a permission. Hence, it cannot be said that
no remedy whatsoever is available to a person who seeks to revoke or
Thursday, 9 October 2025
Neeta Sawant CRA 273 OF 2021-LFC
modify such profession. For aforesaid reasons, said submissions
cannot be accepted.
20) In the present case as well, Plaintiff 's prayer for injuncting
CIDCO from issuing development permission to Defendant Nos. 5 to 7
would be barred by section 149 of the MRTP Act. The injunction sought
by him to restrain Defendant Nos.1 to 7 from obstructing his business
also has connection with provisions of Section 53 of the MRTP Act as
CIDCO as a Planning Authority is required to follow the procedure under
Section 53 of the MRTP Act before taking any action against
unauthorised constructions. Therefore, the entire prayer clause (c) in the
Plaint is barred by Section 149 of the MRTP Act.
21) Since the whole of the Plaint can be rejected by having
recourse to the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code, it is not
necessary to go into the controversy of permissibility to reject either part
of the Plaint or whole of the Plaint against specified Defendants. I am
therefore not discussing ratio of the judgment in Sejal Glass (supra) as has
been clarified by Single Judge of this Court in Chetana Shankar Manapure
(supra). Similarly, it is not necessary to discuss the ratio of the judgment
of the Apex Court in Madhav Prasad Aggarwal (supra) and of this Court
in Captain Lance Irwin Lobo (supra) dealing with the issue of survival of
Plaint against certain Defendants. In the present case, the Suit would not
survive against any of the Defendants once the same is rejected against
Defendant Nos.1 to 7. Defendant Nos.8 and 9 are Plaintiff 's brothers who
are impleaded as formal Defendants and who would actually support
Plaintiff 's case. Plaintiff has not filed a simple case for protection of his
possession against Defendant Nos.5 to 7 (allotees of Plot no.10A). His Suit
is essentially for allotment of land admeasuring 400.23 sq.mtrs. by
deducting the same from the land allotted to Defendant Nos.5 to 7. His
Thursday, 9 October 2025
Neeta Sawant CRA 273 OF 2021-LFC
prayer for injunction to restrain Defendants No.5 to 7 from obstructing his
business is not only related to but is also restricted to the timeline till
allotment of area admeasuring 400.23 sq.mtrs. Once the prayer for
allotment is hit by Section 149 of the MRTP Act, the whole Plaint
deserves to be rejected. Similarly, it not necessary to discuss the ratio of
the judgment of Apex Court in D. Ramachandran (supra) dealing with
the issue of rejection of part of the Plaint since the whole Plaint
deserves to be rejected in the present case.
22) The conspectus of the above discussion is that the Trial Court
has erred in rejecting the Application at Exhibit-13 seeking rejection of
Plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. The impugned order is
indefensible and liable to be set aside.
23) The Revision Application accordingly succeeds and I
proceed to pass the following order:
i) Order dated 21 January 2021 passed by the Trial Court on
Application at Exhibit-13 in Special Civil Suit 619/2018 is set
aside.
ii) The Plaint in Special Civil Suit 619/2018 is rejected under the
provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code. Civil
Revision Application is accordingly allowed without any
order as to costs.
Digitally
signed by
NEETA
NEETA SHAILESH
SHAILESH SAWANT
SAWANT Date: [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]
2025.10.09
18:10:31
+0530
Thursday, 9 October 2025
