Monday, 01, Jun, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Moinuddin Nawabzada Through Alex N. ... vs Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited
2026 Latest Caselaw 4882 Bom

Citation : 2026 Latest Caselaw 4882 Bom
Judgement Date : 12 May, 2026

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Bombay High Court

Moinuddin Nawabzada Through Alex N. ... vs Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited on 12 May, 2026

          Digitally
          signed by                                                  13-WP(L)-16901-2026.doc
          RUPALI
RUPALI    RAJESH
RAJESH    WAKODIKAR
WAKODIKAR Date:
          2026.05.12
          19:40:35       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
          +0530

                               ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                           WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 16901 OF 2026


                Moinuddin Nawabzada
                Through Alex N. Fernandes                 ...Petitioner
                     Versus
                The Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited
                & Ors.                                    ...Respondents


                Ms. Hetal Patel a/w Mr. Suraj Shetye, Mr. Hemanshu Vyas, Ms.
                Priyasha Pawar and Saba Shaikh, for the Petitioner.

                Mr. Roopadaksha Basu a/w Ms. Heenal Wadhwa i/b The Law Point,
                for the Respondent No.1.

                Mr. Milind More, Addl. G. P. with Mr. Vikrant Parshurami, A.G.P., for
                the Respondent No.2-State.

                                           CORAM : ADVAIT M. SETHNA &
                                                   SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.

DATE : 12th MAY, 2026 (VACATION COURT)

P.C. :

1. This petition is moved before the Vacation Court on the

ground of urgency being that the Petitioner claims to be the owner of

a Hoarding ("subject Hoarding" for short) situated on CTS No.2075

13-WP(L)-16901-2026.doc

Pt. (FPNo. 165) in Vakola Division, Santacruz No.V, (subject

Hoarding) since 1968 on plot belonging to one M/s. Solvex Oil

Company Limited. The Petitioner had executed a lease of 99 years in

respect of the said plot for a lumpsum amount under an agreement

dated 20th December, 1972. The subject Hoarding continues to be on

the said plot since the year 1968.

2. Issue notice. Learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 and

Learned A.G.P for Respondent No.2 - State waives service.

3. The Petitioner has received the impugned communication

dated 5th May, 2026 (Exhibit - J), pursuant to the Minutes of Meeting

dated 29th April, 2026 of the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation

Limited (Exhibit - F), pursuant to which the Petitioner has been

directed to forthwith remove the said Hoarding.

4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at some length and

with their assistance, we have perused the record.

5. It appears from the Minutes of Meeting dated 29 th April,

2026 and the impugned communication dated 5 th May, 2026 that the

subject Hoarding is illegally erected on another plot i.e. FPNo. 164

13-WP(L)-16901-2026.doc

TPS which is owned by the Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited

according to the said Respondent, instead of on plot FPNo. 165 TPS.

6. Mr. Roopadaksha Basu, learned Counsel appearing for the

Respondent - MMRC has placed some photographs and maps which

are taken on record and marked as 'X'-for Identification. He would

submit that the Petitioner has constructed a fence around the subject

Hoarding which forms a part of encroached land/ plot in respect of

which action has been initiated.

7. In our prima facie view, the Hoarding appears to be

continuing on the said plot since the year 1968 until the impugned

communication issued on 5th May, 2026, there has been no

communication from the Respondent Authority to the Petitioner to

remove the said Hoarding on any ground whatsoever. Prima facie, it

appears that the reason given in the impugned communication relates

to the subject Hoarding located on another plot which is according to

the Respondent, illegal. Besides this, there are no other reasons on the

ground of safety or otherwise which are mentioned in the said

impugned communication, to justify removal of the subject Hoarding.

13-WP(L)-16901-2026.doc

8. For the above reasons, in our view, in the interest of

justice, we direct that status-quo be maintained in respect of the

subject Hoarding until the next date.

9. The Respondents shall file their affidavits-in-reply on or

before the next date with advance copy to the learned Counsel for the

Petitioner.

10. The Petitioner, on instructions, has fairly stated that they

would remove any fencing which is around the subject Hoarding

within a period of one week from today. Such statement is accepted.

It is clarified that such statement, on instructions, is without prejudice

to the rights and contentions of the Petitioner on merits of the

Petition.

11. Place the petition for further consideration on 17 th June,

2026 before the Regular Court.

            SANDESH D. PATIL, J.                         ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.







 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter