Mumbai, October 27, 2026: The Bombay High Court has held that private contractual disputes regarding additional flat area, promised amenities, and compensation during building redevelopment cannot be decided through a writ petition.
A bench of Justices Suman Shyam and Gautam Ankhad dismissed a petition filed by flat owners Ashwin Ashara and Daksha Ashwin Ashara against developer Namo Realty Ventures LLP and the Bhanujyoti Co-operative Housing Society Limited in Malad (East).
The petitioners, who owned two flats in the society, had challenged the developer after construction was completed and an Occupation Certificate was issued.
They alleged that the carpet area of the newly constructed units was smaller than promised, and that agreed amenities and car parking were not provided. Claiming fraud, they sought additional space and financial compensation under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Petitioners Allege Fraud In Redevelopment
Representing the petitioners, advocate Rajesh Kachare argued, “There has been large-scale fraud and misappropriation of funds in the redevelopment,” adding that the respondents failed to provide vital documents, prejudicing his clients’ rights.
Developer’s advocate, Amanjhot Anand, submitted that the petition was misconceived and sought to turn a civil dispute into a constitutional matter. He noted that the mere inclusion of municipal bodies did not make it a public dispute, adding, “The petitioners’ grievance concerning additional area, amenities, parking, rent and compensation are all matters concerning the redevelopment”.
HC Says Civil Remedies Must Be Pursued
The High Court agreed with the developer, emphasising that writ jurisdiction cannot substitute ordinary civil remedies for private disputes. The HC observed, “The substance of the reliefs sought by the Petitioners is additional area and a claim for compensation / damages against Respondent No.4-Developer in the course of a private redevelopment... In these circumstances, a Writ of Mandamus would not lie against a private person, who is not discharging any public duty”.
Also Watch:
The court noted that out of 48 members, 46 had supported the project, the redevelopment was complete, and all other members had taken possession of their flats. Finding no public law element or breach of statutory duty by municipal authorities, the bench dismissed the petition.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
