[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Salasar Unique Realtors Llp vs Mira Bhayandar Municipal Corporation ... on 13 March, 2026
Author: M. S. Karnik
Bench: M. S. Karnik, S. M. Modak
2026:BHC-AS:12479-DB
Bhogale 902.wp-8610-2025.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.8610 OF 2025
SALASAR UNIQUE REALTORS LLP,
a Limited Liability Partnership
Firm registered under the Limited
Liability Partnership Act, 2008 having
its office at Ground and First Floor,
Shree Vallabh, behind D'mart, 150 Feet
Road, Bhayandar (West),
Thane - 401 101. ... Petitioner
Versus
1. MIRA BHAYANDAR MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION
Indira Gandhi Bhawan, Chhatrapati
Shivaji Maharaj Marg, Wing-C, Uttan
Road, Burhani Nagar, Bhayandar (W),
Tal. & Dist. Thane, Pin - 401 101.
2. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,
TOWN PLANNING,
Mira Bhayandar Municipal
Corporation, Indira Gandhi Bhawan,
Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Marg,
Wing-C, Uttan Road, Burhani Nagar,
Bhayandar (W), Tal. & Dist. Thane,
Pin - 401 101. .... Respondents
****
Mr. Virag Tulzapurkar, Senior Advocate a/w Adv. Nitesh Ranawat,
Adv. Akshit Dedhia (through VC), Adv. Dhanashree Humbarkar i/b.
Wadia Ghandy & Co., for the petitioner.
Adv. Mayuresh Lagu, for the respondent-MBMC.
****
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
S. M. MODAK, JJ.
DATE : 13th MARCH, 2026
1
Bhogale 902.wp-8610-2025.odt
JUDGMENT (PER M. S. KARNIK, J.) :
1. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India has been invoked by the petitioner seeking a
writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.1-Mira Bhayandar
Municipal Corporation ("the Corporation", for short) to process
and sanction the petitioner's application for planning permission
dated 9th July 2024 in respect of the 'Larger Property' in
accordance with law, in a time-bound manner without insisting on
any No Objection Certificate ("NOC", for short) from any revenue
authorities, including the Collector of Thane.
2. Briefly stated the facts are, the petitioner-Salasar Unique
Realtors LLP are the owners of lands, inter alia, bearing Old Survey
No.478 (part) and New Survey No.114/2 (part) of Village
Bhayandar and admeasuring 6,967 square meters, and Old Survey
No.481 (part) and New Survey No.113/4 (part) of Village
Bhayandar, admeasuring 778 square meters situated at Village
Bhayandar, collectively admeasuring 7,745 square meters, District
Thane, now within the limits of Mira Bhayandar Municipal
Corporation ("First Property", for short) under a duly registered
Deed of Conveyance dated 13th October 2014 read with Deed of
Bhogale 902.wp-8610-2025.odt
Confirmation dated 28th December 2020.
3. The petitioner is also a developer appointed by the
owner, RNA Corp Private Limited ("RNA"), in respect of lands
bearing Old Survey No.478 (part) and New Survey No.114/1
(part) admeasuring 18,887 square meters and 114/2 (part)
admeasuring 5,373 square meters of Village Bhayandar and Old
Survey No.481 (part) and New Survey No.113/2 (part)
admeasuring 16,900 square meters and 113/4 (part) admeasuring
21,172 square meters of Village Bhayandar, collectively
admeasuring 62,322 square meters situated at Village Bhayandar,
District Thane, now within the limits of Mira Bhayandar Municipal
Corporation ("Second Property", for short) under duly registered
Agreement dated 13th October 2014 read with Deed dated 5th
February 2021.
4. The 'First Property' and the 'Second Property' are
cumulatively referred to as ("the Larger Property" for short). The
'Larger Property' earlier formed a part of an even larger property
bearing Survey No.478 and 481 admeasuring around 18.85 Acres
of Village Bhayandar, District Thane ("Entire Property", for short).
Bhogale 902.wp-8610-2025.odt
5. In the year 1967, the Commissioner, Bombay Division,
suo motu directed the Assistant Collector, Thane, to hold an
inquiry under Section 20(2) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue
Code, 1966 ("MLRC", for short) in order to determine whether a
part of the Larger Property vested in the State of Maharashtra, or
whether the same is a private property belonging to the petitioner's
predecessor-in-title. The Commissioner, Konkan Division
conducted the inquiry and confirmed by an order dated 31 st
January 1976 that no part of the Larger Property vested in the
State of Maharashtra and that it was privately owned. The
Tahsildar, Thane by order dated 27 th February 1989 directed the
Talathi to enter the name of the petitioner's predecessors in the
record of rights for the Larger Property. The Larger Property was
acquired by one Dhirajlal Shah, whose name came to be mutated
in the revenue records pertaining to the Larger Property. A portion
of the Entire Property admeasuring 4,180 square meters, forming
part of Survey No.481 (part) came to be owned by one Sayyad
Nazir Hussain and this was duly mutated in the revenue records.
6. Dhirajlal Shah got a scheme sanctioned under Section 20
of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 ("ULC Act",
Bhogale 902.wp-8610-2025.odt
for short) on 11th May 1992 in respect of portion of the Larger
Property admeasuring 38,210.32 square meters. The Sub
Divisional Officer ("SDO"), Thane in 1993, suo motu took the said
mutations in revision under Section 257 of the MLRC, citing that
the State was the owner of the Larger Property. By order dated 1 st
November 1993 / 4th November 1993, the Collector of Thane
directed that the revision proceedings be closed and the same were
thus dropped by SDO Thane.
7. RNA acquired the Larger Property from legal heirs of the
Dhirajlal Shah vide Consent Decree dated 3rd December 1993
passed by this Court in Suit No.3569 of 1993. RNA was thus
reflected as the owner of the Larger Property in the revenue
records.
8. Dhirajlal Shah and RNA secured sanctions from the
Collector of Thane for conversion of the Larger Property to Non-
Agricultural use by an order dated 3 rd November 1993. The
petitioner has paid Rs.41.54 lakhs towards NA tax since 2014.
RNA had secured sanction of Layout Plan and Commencement
Certificate in respect of the Larger Property from the Corporation
on 30th March 2007.
Bhogale 902.wp-8610-2025.odt
9. The petitioner acquired ownership of the First Property
from RNA vide registered Deed of Conveyance dated 13 th October
2014 for Rs.18 Crores. The petitioner's name was duly recorded as
the owner in the revenue records in respect of the First Property.
On 13th October 2014 the petitioner acquired development rights
as developer in respect of the Second Property from RNA for Rs.50
Crores vide registered Agreement for Development. The petitioner
paid the Corporation about 12.30 crores (in aggregate) for
planning permissions towards charges/fees.
10. In terms of the directions issued by the Collector of Thane
in 2015, the SDO Thane took the said mutations in revision under
Section 257 of the MLRC for a second time. The Collector of Thane
on 18th December 2015 wrote to the Corporation, directing
suspension of grant of permissions for construction on the Larger
Property during the pendency of the said revision proceedings as a
pro tem measure. The respondent No.2 - Assistant Director, Town
Planning, on Corporation's behalf, passed a formal order on 23 rd
December 2015 abiding by the Collector's direction.
11. RNA challenged the revision proceedings initiated by
SDO, Thane before the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division
Bhogale 902.wp-8610-2025.odt
in 2016. On 26th April 2016 the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan
Division held the revision before the SDO to be not maintainable
and quashed the proceedings. As a consequence of the order dated
26th April 2016, the SDO Thane passed order dated 1 st June 2016
closing the said proceedings.
12. The SDO Thane filed a revision before the Revenue
Minister. The Revenue Minister by order dated 15 th March 2021
terminated the said revision proceedings. The reasons for the
termination are adverted to later in this order.
13. Pursuant to the closure by the Hon'ble Revenue Minister
of the proceedings filed by the SDO, Asmita India Limited, the
developer in respect of that portion of the property owned by
Sayyad Nazir Hussain, called upon the Office of the Collector of
Thane to formally discontinue or revoke the letter dated 18 th
December 2015. The Office of the Collector of Thane on 19 th April
2024 wrote to the Corporation, clarifying that the Corporation was
at liberty to decide on the applications for planning permissions as
per law.
14. The petitioner applied for planning permission for the
proposed construction on the Larger Property on 9 th July 2024.
Bhogale 902.wp-8610-2025.odt
The Corporation wrote to the respondent No.2 on 9 th September
2024 requesting recall and/or revocation of the direction for
suspension of construction vide letter dated 18 th December 2015
during pendency of revision proceedings before the Hon'ble
Revenue Minister. By the impugned communication dated 3 rd
February 2025 the Corporation refused to process the petitioner's
application on the ground that the Collector of Thane had not
responded to its letter dated 9th September 2024.
15. Shri Tulzapurkar, learned Senior Advocate for the
petitioner submitted that it is an undisputed position that the
petitioner is the owner of the First Property and the developer of
the Second Property. The petitioner's rights have been created
under duly registered documents of title and the fact that the
petitioner and its predecessors have always been treated as owners
of the Larger Property is apparent from the various acts and
permissions of the ULC authorities, Collector of Thane (Non-
agricultural conversion), respondent No.1/respondent No.2
(sanctioned Layout Plans and Commencement Certificates),
Revenue Authorities (mutations). It is further submitted that the
State of Maharashtra has consistently lost in its bid to claim the
Bhogale 902.wp-8610-2025.odt
Larger Property three times, viz. 1976, 1993 and 2016. There is no
subsisting lis or proceeding on title. Learned Senior Advocate
further submitted that respondent No.1's Law Officer has clearly
opined that the limited, pro tem direction for suspension of grant
of planning permission vide Collector's letter dated 18th February
2025 came to end upon the termination of the proceedings on 26 th
April 2016 and thus, there is no question of seeking any No
Objection/consent from the Collector and in any event, the
Collector of Thane has effectively clarified that it has no objection
vide letter dated 19th April 2024 in Asmita's case. It is also
submitted that the names of the petitioner in respect of the First
Property and RNA in respect of the Second Property have been
duly entered as owners/holders in the revenue records, and thus,
the legal threshold for grant of planning permission in favour of
the petitioner has been met. Further, it is submitted that the very
basis of the impugned letter dated 3rd February 2025 is contrary to
and de hors the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town
Planning Act ("MRTP Act", for short), as it completely ignores the
jurisdictional limits of respondent No.1/respondent No.2 as the
planning authority. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that the
Bhogale 902.wp-8610-2025.odt
planning authority is not entitled to delve into the questions of
title and cannot insist upon any no objection from any other
authorities that have no bearing on the question of grant of
planning permission, and thus the Collector of Thane as a revenue
officer under MLRC has no jurisdiction to withhold the grant of
planning permission under the MRTP Act. It is also submitted that
refusal of planning permission for such extraneous reasons
tantamount to deprivation of the petitioner's constitutional right to
property enshrined under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
16. Learned Senior Advocate relied upon the following
decisions in support of his submissions :-
(i) Sneha Construction through its proprietor Nandu
Antram Rajput vs. Pune Municipal Corporation
through Chief Municipal Commissioner and Ors.1
[paragraphs 11-12].
(ii) Nadeem Abdul Sattar Lakdawala vs. The
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Ors. 2
[paragraphs 5-6].
(iii) Shree Sai Reality vs. State of Maharashtra and
Ors.3 [paragraphs 15 and 18].
17. Shri Lagu, learned counsel for the Corporation while
1 Writ Petition No.7173 of 2013 decided on 12.12.2013 of Bombay High Court.
2 Writ Petition (L) No.1211 of 2019 decided on 12.06.2019 of Bombay High Court.
3 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 1421
Bhogale 902.wp-8610-2025.odt
vehemently opposing the Writ Petition invited our attention to the
order passed by the Hon'ble Revenue Minister. It is submitted by
Shri Lagu that the Hon'ble Revenue Minister has not decided the
Revision Application on merits but terminated the proceedings in
view of the intervention made by the Resolution Professional who
was appointed by the National Company Law Tribunal ("NCLT", for
short), Mumbai under the provisions of Section 22 of the
Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("IBC", for short) and the
Rules made thereunder to conduct the corporate resolution process
in the Petition under Section 7 of the IBC passed by the NCLT vide
order dated 26th November 2019. It is submitted that RNA is the
corporate debtor. On account of default in repayment of debt etc.,
committed by the corporate debtor, more specifically mentioned in
the Petition before the NCLT and in view of the various provisions
of the IBC, considering the law relied upon by the parties, the
Revision Application was closed by the Hon'ble Revenue Minister.
Thus, according to him, the Revision Application was not decided
on merits in view of the provisions of the IBC.
18. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have
perused the impugned order and the materials on record.
Bhogale 902.wp-8610-2025.odt
19. The sole ground for refusal of the application seeking the
grant of planning permission is the letter dated 18th December
2015 of the Collector Thane. The Collector directed the
Corporation to stop issuance of further planning permissions
during the pendency of the revision proceedings under Section 257
of the MLRC. The aforesaid revision petition came to be finally
decided in favour of the petitioner's predecessors and against the
Collector. The Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division by the
order dated 26th April 2016 held the revision proceedings initiated
by the SDO as not maintainable and quashed the proceedings. This
was decided in favour of RNA i.e. the petitioner's predecessors. As
the narration of the facts would reveal, on several occasions, suo
motu inquiry was ordered in respect of the said land under the
provisions of the MLRC to determine whether a part of the Larger
Property vested in the State of Maharashtra, or whether the same
is a private property belonging to the petitioner's predecessors-in-
title.
20. The Commissioner, Konkan Division had, as far back as on
31st January 1976, conducted the inquiry and confirmed that no
part of the Larger Property vested in the State of Maharashtra and
Bhogale 902.wp-8610-2025.odt
that it was privately owned. Again, the SDO Thane suo motu took
the said mutations in revision under Section 257 of the MLRC in
1993 citing the State was the owner of the Larger Property. The
Collector of Thane directed the said revision proceedings to be
closed and the same were dropped by the SDO Thane on 4 th
November 1993. The Collector of Thane again directed the SDO in
2015 to revise the mutations. During the pendency of the revision
proceedings before the SDO, the Collector of Thane directed
suspension of grant of permissions for construction on the Larger
Property by order dated 18th December 2015. The Divisional
Commissioner by order dated 26th April 2016 held the revision to
be not maintainable and quashed the revision proceedings
initiated by the SDO. Thus, by virtue of the order dated 26 th April
2016, the effect of the order dated 18th December 2015 passed by
the Collector of Thane directing the Corporation for suspension of
the grant of permissions for construction on the Larger Property
during the pendency of the said revision proceedings came to an
end. It is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Revenue Minister
terminated the proceedings in view of the provisions of the IBC.
Bhogale 902.wp-8610-2025.odt
21. The interim directions were passed by the Tahsildar on
18th December 2015 as a result of which the application for
permission for construction was not considered. No doubt the
proceedings were terminated before the Hon'ble Revenue Minister
as a result of the intervention by the Resolution Professional upon
bringing the relevant provisions of the IBC to the notice of the
Hon'ble Revenue Minister.
22. However, it is apparent that the impugned order passed
by the Corporation was in view of the pro tem measure proposed
by the Collector vide communication dated 18th December 2015
which became inconsequential and lost its force as a result of the
Divisional Commissioner's order dated 26th April 2016, which was
in favour of the petitioner. The letter dated 18 th December 2015
was the sole ground for suspending the application requesting the
planning permission. Once the pro tem measure comes to an end
by virtue of the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division's order,
and in view of the subsequent order passed by the Hon'ble
Revenue Minister, the very foundation of the impugned order no
longer survives. That the proceedings came to an end before the
Hon'ble Revenue Minister on the ground of declaration of
Bhogale 902.wp-8610-2025.odt
moratorium, is no ground to deny relief to the petitioner.
23. That the Hon'ble Revenue Minister terminated the
revision on the ground that the moratorium was declared on the
commencement of the insolvency in 2019 is hardly of any
consequence so far as the action impugned in this Petition is
concerned. The impugned order will have to be tested on the
ground on which it is passed. Once the ground mentioned in the
impugned order does not subsist, the impugned order has to be set
aside.
24. The impugned order therefore is quashed and set aside.
The Corporation is directed to process and sanction the petitioner's
application for planning permission dated 9th July 2024 in respect
of the Larger Property in accordance with law without insisting on
any NOC from the revenue authorities including the Collector of
Thane expeditiously.
25. In the light of the submissions of Shri Lagu, it is for the
Corporation to consider the effect of the appointment of the
Resolution Professional on the application for planning permission
when the same is processed on its own merits and in accordance
with law.
Bhogale 902.wp-8610-2025.odt
26. The Writ Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
No order as to costs.
(S. M. MODAK, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Signed by: Pradnya Bhogale
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
