FAISAL ZAHIRUDDIN SHAIKH vs THE CHIEF OFFICER (MHADA) — HCBM20140102026

Case under Mah. Housing & Area Devolopment Act Section 226. Disposed: DISPOSED OFF on 08th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM020140102026

Filing Number

WP/14010/2026

Filing Date

20-Apr-2026

Judge

Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik , Hon'ble Shri Justice S. M. Modak

Coram

Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik , Hon'ble Shri Justice S. M. Modak

Bench Type

Division

Category

TOWN PLANNING ( 39 )

Sub-Category

MHADA ( 6 )

Judicial Branch

Original

Decision Date

08-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

DISPOSED OFF

Last updated 21-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Mah. Housing & Area Devolopment Act Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.FAISAL ZAHIRUDDIN SHAIKH

    Adv. Khatkhatay M M

  2. 2.PREMA SADANAND SHETTY

  3. 3.PRASAD SADANAND SHETTY

  4. 4.RIZWAN ABBASI

  5. 5.FARZANA RIZWAN ABBASI

  6. 6.JUZER KASIMBHAI MERCHANT

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.THE CHIEF OFFICER (MHADA)

    Adv. ,M/S. SARWANKAR and CO.,M/S. SARWANKAR and CO.,M/S. SARWANKAR and CO. 1123

  2. 2.THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER E-2, M.B.R. AND R BOARD

    Adv. PRASHANT SARWANKAR PRASHANT SARWANKAR PRASHANT SARWANKAR

  3. 3.MOHAMMEDI KURBAN HUSEIN SAKARWALA

    Adv. PRASHANT SARWANKAR PRASHANT SARWANKAR PRASHANT SARWANKAR

  4. 4.MURTUZA FAKHRUDDIN PATANWALA

    Adv. PRASHANT SARWANKAR PRASHANT SARWANKAR PRASHANT SARWANKAR

  5. 5.THE ST. LAWRENCE ASSOCIATION OF MOODUBELLE

    Adv. PRASHANT SARWANKAR PRASHANT SARWANKAR PRASHANT SARWANKAR

  6. 6.ASGAR T. DALAL

    Adv. PRASHANT SARWANKAR PRASHANT SARWANKAR PRASHANT SARWANKAR

  7. 7.SHIRIN BANU AKBERBHAI LUCKNOWALA

    Adv. PRASHANT SARWANKAR PRASHANT SARWANKAR PRASHANT SARWANKAR

  8. 8.SIRAJ AHMED KHAN

    Adv. PRASHANT SARWANKAR,PRASHANT SARWANKAR PRASHANT SARWANKAR PRASHANT SARWANKAR

  9. 9.MOHAMMED RIZWAN SHAFIQUE KHAN

    Adv. PRASHANT SARWANKAR,PRASHANT SARWANKAR PRASHANT SARWANKAR PRASHANT SARWANKAR

  10. 10.MEHNAZ RIZWAN KHAN

    Adv. PRASHANT SARWANKAR,PRASHANT SARWANKAR PRASHANT SARWANKAR PRASHANT SARWANKAR

  11. 11.LAXMI BLDG TENANTS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD

    Adv. PRASHANT SARWANKAR PRASHANT SARWANKAR PRASHANT SARWANKAR

  12. 12.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA TH. THE OFFICE OF GOV. PLEADER

    Adv. PRASHANT SARWANKAR PRASHANT SARWANKAR PRASHANT SARWANKAR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 16-Jun-2026

    For Settlement / Consent Terms

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik , Hon'ble Shri Justice S. M. Modak

  3. 08-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik,hon'ble Shri Justice S. M. ModakView PDF

    Case Summary The Bombay High Court disposed of two consolidated writ petitions filed by petitioners against MHADA and others regarding housing/development matters. The court accepted consent terms signed by the petitioners and developer (D.C. Amber Developers LLP) on May 7, 2026, whereby the developer agreed to apply for NOC (No Objection Certificate) from MHADA within one week, and MHADA undertook to expeditiously consider the application within four weeks in accordance with law. The petitions were disposed of based on these agreed settlement terms, with the court noting petitioners were protected by specific clauses in the consent agreement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  4. 07-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik,hon'ble Shri Justice S. M. ModakView PDF

  5. 07-May-2026

    For Circulation

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik , Hon'ble Shri Justice S. M. Modak

  6. 05-May-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik,hon'ble Shri Justice S. M. ModakView PDF

  7. 05-May-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 20-Apr-2026

    Case filed

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary The Bombay High Court disposed of two consolidated writ petitions filed by petitioners against MHADA and others regarding housing/development matters. The court accepted consent terms signed by the petitioners and developer (D.C. Amber Developers LLP) on May 7, 2026, whereby the developer agreed to apply for NOC (No Objection Certificate) from MHADA within one week, and MHADA undertook to expeditiously consider the application within four weeks in accordance with law. The petitions were disposed of based on these agreed settlement terms, with the court noting petitioners were protected by specific clauses in the consent agreement. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case