FARIDA KASIM ALI MANIHAR vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA REPRESENTED BY THE LD. GOVT. PLEADER, — WP/2397/2026
Case under Mah. Slum Areas Act Section 226. Disposed: Contested--DISPOSED OFF on 08th May 2026.
CNR: HCBM020167792026
Filing Number
WP/16779/2026
Filing Date
07-May-2026
Registration No
WP/2397/2026
Registration Date
12-May-2026
Judge
Hon'ble Shri Justice Jitendra Shantilal Jain
Coram
Hon'ble Shri Justice Jitendra Shantilal Jain
Bench Type
Division
Category
TOWN PLANNING ( 39 )
Sub-Category
SLUM REDEVELOPEMENT SCHEMES ( 3 )
Judicial Branch
Original
Decision Date
08-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
Contested--DISPOSED OFF
Last updated 21-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.FARIDA KASIM ALI MANIHAR
Adv. Khan Fakhruddin
Respondent(s)
-
1.THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA REPRESENTED BY THE LD. GOVT. PLEADER,
-
2.DEPUTY DISTRICT COLLECTOR (SPL CELL WEST SUB, SRA MUMBAI )
-
3.APEX GRIEVANCES REDRESSAL COMMITTEE, SRA MUMBAI
-
4.SHREE SAI NATH SRA CHS (PROP)
-
5.SHREE SHIDHIVINAYAK INFRA REALITY AND DEVELOPER
-
6.CEO, SRA BANDRA
-
7.CHIEF EXECUTIVE ENGINEERING DEPT. SRA, BANDRA MUMBAI
-
8.DY. REGISTRAR COOPERATIVE SRA BANDRA,
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
08-May-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice M. S. Karnik,hon'ble Shri Justice S. M. ModakView PDF
-
08-May-2026
Hon'ble Shri Justice Jitendra Shantilal JainView PDF
The Bombay High Court disposed of Farida Kasim Ali Manihar's petition seeking stay of demolition of slum property on C.T.S. No. 736, finding the demolition notice was directed at different properties (C.T.S. Nos. 717(P) and 718(P)), thereby making relief unnecessary for her property. The court kept all contentions open regarding C.T.S. No. 736, providing that any future action would be decided in accordance with law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
07-May-2026
Case filed
Registration No. WP/2397/2026
The Bombay High Court disposed of Farida Kasim Ali Manihar's petition seeking stay of demolition of slum property on C.T.S. No. 736, finding the demolition notice was directed at different properties (C.T.S. Nos. 717(P) and 718(P)), thereby making relief unnecessary for her property. The court kept all contentions open regarding C.T.S. No. 736, providing that any future action would be decided in accordance with law. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts