Bombay HC hears challenge to Cluster Development Scheme acquisition under MRTP Act and DCPR 2034

KanoonHQ Legal Gazette · AI-generated brief from the source linked below. How briefs are made

Published 30 October 2026

Case: Moiz Dawoodbhai Palitanawala And 4 Ors vs The Municipal Corporation Of Greater ...
Court: Bombay High Court
Bench: Manish Pitale, J.
Decided: 23 October 2026
Statutes: Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 — s.126(4)
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — s.19(1)
Constitution of India — s.300A
Source: Indian Kanoon (Bombay HC)

Bottom Line Up Front (BLUF)

In Moiz Dawoodbhai Palitanawala And 4 Ors vs The Municipal Corporation Of Greater ... (2026-10-23), the Bombay High Court heard a challenge to property acquisition under a Cluster Development Scheme. Petitioners argued that Regulation 33(9)(3)(5) of DCPR 2034 is ultra vires the MRTP Act and Article 300A of the Constitution, and challenged the acquisition notification and award.

Ratio Decidendi · Legal Principle Established

The legal principle applied or laid down by the court is not stated in the provided excerpt, as the excerpt only describes the issues being challenged.

Practice & Procedural Impact for Advocates

Advocates should note the specific challenge to Regulation 33(9)(3)(5) of DCPR 2034 and its alleged ultra vires nature. Litigants facing acquisition under similar schemes may consider challenging the regulatory framework and the acquisition process itself.

Key Legal Takeaways

1Challenge to Cluster Development Scheme acquisition.
2Challenge to Regulation 33(9)(3)(5) of DCPR 2034 as ultra vires MRTP Act and Article 300A.
3Challenge to acquisition notification under MRTP Act and Right to Fair Compensation Act, 2013.

The Legal Issue The petitioners, Moiz Dawoodbhai Palitanawala and four others, challenged the acquisition of their properties under a Cluster Development Scheme (CDS) implemented by the Saifee Burhani Upliftment Trust. The acquisition was carried out as per the Development Control and Promotion Regulations 2034 (DCPR), framed under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act). The core of their challenge was the validity of Regulation 33(9)(3)(5) of DCPR, which they contended was ultra vires the MRTP Act and also violated their right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India. Additionally, the petitioners challenged the notification dated 27.09.2019 issued by the Collector, Mumbai City, under Section 126(4) of the MRTP Act read with Section 19(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The consequential acquisition award dated 30.12.2019 and the possession notice dated 30.01.2020 were also sought to be quashed and set aside.

Court's Reasoning The provided excerpt details the issues raised by the petitioners but does not include the court's reasoning or decision. The Bombay High Court, through Justice Manish Pitale, heard the arguments concerning the alleged ultra vires nature of DCPR Regulation 33(9)(3)(5) and the constitutional challenge under Article 300A. The court also considered the validity of the acquisition notification and the subsequent award and possession notice.

What Follows The excerpt does not state the outcome of the hearing or any directions issued by the court. The matter was heard, and the judgment was pronounced on 23rd October 2026, following its reservation on 5th August 2026. The specific consequences of the court's decision are not available in this text.