Bombay HC Directs BMC To Halt Further Steps On Neville D’Souza Ground At Bandra Reclamation
The Bombay High Court has directed the BMC to halt further steps to change the reservation of Neville D’Souza Football Ground at Bandra Reclamation until the next hearing on September 18. The court questioned the civic body's handling of an earlier assurance that the ground would not be converted into an exhibition-cum-convention centre.

The Bombay High Court has stopped further BMC action on the proposed reservation change for Neville D’Souza Football Ground | AI Generated Image
Mumbai, August 20, 2026: The Bombay High Court on Wednesday directed the BMC to refrain from taking any further steps to change the reservation of Neville D’Souza Football Ground at Bandra Reclamation until the next hearing on September 18, noting that it was "unfortunate" that the undertaking given by the BMC’s advocate to the court was not communicated to the civic chief.
“You must tell us where people will play football now. Some places have to be left open. Otherwise, the next generation will forget what they call it as maidani khel (outdoor sports). They will forget the ground,” a bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad said.
It said, “We have a bigger problem. We have an issue of the majesty of law being at stake. If the elected people or authorities are going to jeer at the courts, then that’s something very bad. So, we are now going to do something suo motu (on its own), unless you turn back the clock to August 10.”
The court also issued notices to the BMC and Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) on a petition filed by the Mumbai Football Association (MFA) challenging the proposed conversion of the football ground into an exhibition/convention centre.
MFA Flags BMC Move
The development comes a day after the MFA flagged a BMC move to clear a proposal to convert the Bandra football ground to an exhibition-cum-convention centre despite earlier assurances to the court on August 10 that the ground would not be converted.
Advocate Zal Andhyarujina, appearing for the MFA, pointed out to the court that a question was put forth during the BMC’s general body meeting whether there was a stay (from HC).
“The answer was there is no stay. And therefore, they said we are going ahead. So, this arrangement, which was put in place by your Lordship's call, was specifically not brought to their attention, despite an opportunity arising,” he said.
He said the petitioner had relied on the statement made by the BMC in open court. He said the petitioner had also informed the BMC’s legal department about the assurance on the same day.
BMC Defends Resolution
The BMC has defended its move to approve the Bandra football ground conversion proposal, stating that its general body took the decision only to publish a notice inviting suggestions and objections from stakeholders.
Now, the civic body has assured that the change in reservations will happen only after the state government passes an order.
On a court query whether the BMC can keep the decision in abeyance till further hearing, senior advocate Girish Godbole, representing it, said that it was not possible under the Municipal Act for the Commissioner to request the general body to suspend or recall the resolution, passed based on the agenda of the meeting circulated last month.
He also emphasised that the Municipal Commissioner was not aware of what had transpired during the August 10 hearing and that the agenda for the General Body meeting had already been circulated on July 22.
The bench questioned how the Commissioner could remain unaware of the court proceedings when the corporation had a legal department.
Court Questions Undertaking
The court also expressed concern over assurances given in court being treated casually. It said lawyers would eventually stop trusting statements made by their colleagues if such assurances were not honoured by their clients.
“In several cases, a request is made by the respondent that the statement need not be recorded, but the status quo would be maintained. The petitioner trusted the statement of the corporation, which was made on instructions,” the bench said.
ACJ Ghuge pointed out that it was the BMC which had sought adjournment on August 10 and “understanding is that the party which seeks an adjournment does not precipitate the issue”.
Also Watch:
The bench directed the BMC to refrain from undertaking any further steps in relation to the football ground until further hearing. The court has asked the BMC and MHADA to file their reply affidavits and MFA to file a rejoinder affidavit.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
RECENT STORIES
-
PM-YASASVI Scholarship: OBC, EBC, DNT Students Of Classes 9-12 Get Up To Rs 1.25 Lakh; Check Details... -
Navi Mumbai Crime: 4 Robbers Allegedly Break Into Ulwe House, Flee With Gold And Cash Worth ₹9... -
Raksha Bandhan 2026: Correct Date, Shubh Muhurat & Symbolism Explained -
India’s Crude Oil Import Bill Jumps 57% To $63.4 Billion In April-July FY27 Despite Flat Volumes -
Vasai-Virar Pothole Row: Activist Vivek Tiwari Goes On Indefinite Hunger Strike, Demands VVCMC City...
