Bombay High Court Orders TMC to Issue Certificates for Chitalsar-Manpada Land
On Friday, July 3, 2026, the Bombay High Court issued a stern contempt warning to the Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC), prompting the civic body to agree to issue Development Rights and TDR Utilisation Certificates to M/s D. Dahyabhai & Co. Pvt. Ltd. over a 193-acre land dispute in Chitalsar-Manpada, Thane.
The decision brings a nearly 50-year-old land dispute closer to resolution after the TMC initially failed to comply with a February court order to compensate the landowner.
A bench consisting of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge and Justice Gautam Ankhad heard the contempt petition filed by the company. The petition alleged that the TMC had failed to comply with the High Court’s February 20 order, which had directed the corporation to issue statutory compensation within 21 days.
The February judgment concluded a five-decade-old dispute by ruling that the Maharashtra state government had failed to legally acquire approximately 193 acres of land at Chitalsar-Manpada under the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975. The court found fundamental procedural lapses in the acquisition process, including a failure to serve notice to the landowner, and ruled that the company was entitled to compensation through Development Rights Certificates (DRC) and Transferable Development Rights (TDR) certificates.
Although the Supreme Court subsequently dismissed the state's challenge to the judgment, the TMC did not issue the certificates, prompting the landowner to initiate contempt proceedings.
During the hearing on Friday, TMC's counsel, Ram Apte, argued that the state government was pursuing further proceedings that could affect the matter. However, the High Court bench clarified that the contempt proceedings were directed specifically at the municipal corporation, not the state.
"In a contempt petition, you either comply with the order or go to jail," the court remarked, directing the TMC to produce proof of implementation.
Advocate Cherag Balsara, representing the petitioner, argued that internal government deliberations could not override a binding judicial order. He also raised concerns over the authenticity of a communication sent by the corporation, noting it lacked a date, folio number, and outward number.
To protect both parties, the court suggested that the petitioner furnish an undertaking regarding the use of the DRC in case the state succeeds in future legal proceedings.
Following the court's warnings, Apte informed the bench that the petitioner could visit the municipal corporation on July 7 to complete the required formalities, after which the DRC and TDR Utilisation Certificates would be handed over. Balsara agreed to the timeline, confirming the petitioner would be present to sign the documents. The court has scheduled the next hearing for the afternoon of July 7.
