Classic Case of Land Usurpation: Bombay High Court Refuses To Recall Order On Demolition Of Illegally Constructed Dargah

The Bombay High Court refused to recall its order directing the demolition of the Dargah constructed illegally and observed that the Trust must independently prove the right to the structure as well as the land to seek protection of the structure.

The Applicant, also known as Pardeshi Baba Trust filed a recall application before the Bombay High Court, which directed the demolition of the illegally constructed Dargah.

The Bench of Justice A.S. Gadkari and Justice Kamal Khata observed, “The Applicant must independently prove the right to the structure as well as the land to in order that the Court would direct protection of the structure. In view of the aforesaid, the structure deserves to be demolished at the earliest and in any event within a period of two weeks from the date of the uploading of this order on the official website of the Bombay High Court.”

Senior Advocate Rajiv Patil represented the Applicant, while Advocates Kunal Dwarkadas and Senior Advocate R.S Apte represented the original petitioners and respondents.

Case Brief

The Applicant, herein, filed an application for the recall of the judgment passed previously by the High Court in the Writ Petition concerned whereby demolition of Dargah structures were directed by the High Court without approval from the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations. The Trust contended that without affording an opportunity to be heard the Dargah cannot be demolished.

While the Thane Municipal Corporation contended that there was no permission granted to the Trust for construction of the structure in question, thus, the entire structure is an entirely illegal structure.

The High Court of Bombay directed for the demolition of the Dargah in April 2025, however, the Trust approached to the Supreme Court. Thereby, the Supreme Court ordered to maintain a status quo for the time being.

Court’s Analysis

At the outset, the Bench noted that the Trust has successfully delayed the compliance of the order of the Court. Further, the Trust was not able to produce any evidence to suggest that there was any structure owned or possessed by the Trust.

“The only contention raised by the Applicant is that, when they issued a Public Notice through the Charity Commissioner claiming ownership of the structure as a Dargah, there were no objections taken by anybody. The Trust being certified was therefore declared as the owner of the structure. This in our view can never be the basis of ownership of any structure on anybody's land. The Applicants have not produced any document whatsoever to show ownership of the land or the structure at all. In our view, they have encroached upon the land and claimed rights on a structure that was never theirs”, the Court opined.

Pertinently, the structures in question have been increased to a humongous structure of more than 20,000 sq. ft. The Court opined that the conduct of the Trust has not been such to claim any equities. The claim of a structure being a Dargah must be proved by the Trust in appropriate proceedings before the jurisdictional Civil Court.

The Court observed, “The Applicants have entirely failed in proving (i) that, they own the land or (ii) they have taken permissions from the Municipal Authorities to construct even a square inch on the land. In our view therefore, the Applicants have no right over the structure now constructed illegally or even the structure on the Petitioner's land.”

Pertinently, the Trust neither paid any consideration for acquisition of the land nor have taken any permission for constructing the structure.

“The Applicants have failed to prove that they had even obtained sanction for even one square foot. That be the case this Court cannot protect such illegalities. We have set out the decisions of the Supreme Court in our Judgment and we are bound to follow it. In view of the aforesaid, we see no reason to recall our Order”, the Court held.

The Bombay High Court called it a classic case of “usurpation of the land”.

Accordingly, the Interim Application was dismissed.

Cause Title: Gazi Salauddin Rehmatulla Hoole V. Thane Municipal Corporation & Ors. (Interim Application (ST) No. 21468 of 2025 in Writ Petition No. 21468 of 2025)

Appearance:

Applicant: Senior Advocate Rajiv Patil, Advocates Siddharth A. Mehta, Harshada Shrikhande & Vaibhav

Respondents: Advocates Kunal Dwarkadas, Karan Bhide, S.C. Mahimtura, Nilesh Tated, Ishaan Zaveri for original petitioners

Senior Advocate R.S. Apte, Advocates Mandar Limaye & Juilee Joshi for original respondents

Click here to read/download Order