Bombay HC Rejects Interim Relief In Goregaon Land Dispute, Flags Serious Document Forgery

In a significant order, the Bombay High Court has refused interim protection to the legal heirs of the late Salim K. Shaikh in a long-running dispute over a Goregaon land parcel, while sharply criticizing investigative agencies for failing to act on what appears to be serious document fabrication and stamp duty violations.

Plaintiffs Claim Rights via Adverse Possession

Justice Jitendra Jain passed the order on November 3; the detailed copy was uploaded late Monday. The plaintiffs Asiya and Asad Salim Shaikh claim rights over the land as legal representatives of the now-dissolved partnership firm M/s Shaikh Constructions. They sought to restrain Romell Housing LLP and its group entities from disturbing their alleged possession and sought continuation of the Court Receiver. Three connected interim applications were heard together.

Senior advocate Predeep Sancheti argued that the Shaikhs had acquired title by adverse possession, having carried out quarrying operations since the 1970s. He relied on a December 18, 1975 agreement under which KN Shaikh took the land on rent from John Pereia for Rs 25,000 and a monthly rent of Rs 300.

Alleged Forgery of Power of Attorney

Sancheti alleged that Romell relied on “forged and fabricated” documents to show ownership, particularly two “entirely different” versions of a registered Power of Attorney (POA) dated May 19, 2010. Both bore the same registration number but carried different signatures, clauses, fonts, and witnesses “prima facie impossible” if genuine. He also disputed Romell’s claim that the Shaikhs were paid Rs 35 lakh in 2016, citing contradictions in the defendants’ TDS certificates. Despite a complaint, the CBI had not acted on the alleged forgeries.

Romell Counters, Claims No Adverse Possession

Senior advocate Aspi Chinoy, representing Romell, argued that the Shaikhs had not pleaded the basic elements required to claim adverse possession. KN Shaikh was merely a tenant, and “mere continued possession” cannot ripen into title. He further contended the suit disclosed no cause of action.

Court Orders Investigation and Document Confiscation

The court had asked government pleader Himanshu Takke to verify which POA existed in official records. Only a General Power of Attorney, not the Irrevocable one cited by the Shaikhs, was traced. Justice Jain remarked that the alleged fabrication was too serious to ignore and highlighted implementation delays encouraging fraud.

The Advocate General was directed to appoint a senior police officer to probe the suspected fraud, with the court monitoring progress monthly. The allegedly forged POA is to be confiscated, while two December 10, 2016 agreements relied on by the defendants are to be impounded for stamp-duty adjudication.

Interim Pleas Rejected; Court Receiver to Continue

Holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case or prove title, the HC rejected all three interim pleas. The existing arrangement with the Court Receiver will continue for two weeks to allow appellate relief; otherwise, possession must be returned. The matter is listed for compliance on December 15, 2025.