Bombay HC hears challenge to land acquisition under Cluster Development Scheme and DCPR Regulation 33(9)(3)(5)

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

Published 30 October 2026

Case: Dhanwadi Mohallah Mosque Waqf, Through ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Through ...
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 Dhanwadi Mohallah Mosque Waqf v. State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court heard a challenge to land acquisition under a Cluster Development Scheme. The petitioners argued that Regulation 33(9)(3)(5) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations 2034 (DCPR) was ultra vires the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) and Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

Ratio Decidendi · Legal Principle Established

The legal principle applied concerned the challenge to the vires of a regulation framed under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, and its alleged violation of the right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, in the context of a land acquisition for a Cluster Development Scheme.

Practice & Procedural Impact for Advocates

Advocates should scrutinize the vires of development regulations against parent acts and constitutional provisions when challenging land acquisition. Litigants must be prepared to challenge notifications and awards issued under both the MRTP Act and the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

Key Legal Takeaways

1Challenge to land acquisition under a Cluster Development Scheme.
2Challenge to the vires of DCPR Regulation 33(9)(3)(5) under MRTP Act and Article 300A.
3Challenge to acquisition notification under MRTP Act s. 126(4) and Act of 2013 s. 19(1).

The Legal Issue The petitioners, Dhanwadi Mohallah Mosque Waqf, 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 legal issue revolved around the validity of Regulation 33(9)(3)(5) of the DCPR, which the petitioners 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, along with the consequential acquisition award dated 30.12.2019 and the possession notice dated 30.01.2020.

Court's Reasoning The Bombay High Court, through Justice Manish Pitale, heard arguments concerning the challenge to the statutory validity of DCPR Regulation 33(9)(3)(5). The petitioners' primary contention was that the regulation exceeded the powers granted by the MRTP Act and infringed upon their constitutional right to property. The court considered the arguments regarding the legality of the acquisition process, including the notification issued under Section 126(4) of the MRTP Act and Section 19(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, as well as the subsequent award and possession notice.

What Follows The judgment was pronounced on 23rd October 2026, after being reserved on 5th August 2026. The specific outcome of the challenge to the acquisition and the vires of the regulation is not detailed in the provided excerpt. The court's decision will determine the fate of the land acquisition for the Cluster Development Scheme and the validity of DCPR Regulation 33(9)(3)(5).