Synopsis

The petitioners, a construction firm, obtained development permissions from Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation for a multi-storey building after relinquishing land for DP roads. Later, the Corporation discovered that the petitioners had misrepresented facts and submitted incorrect documents – the subject plot was actually affected by 24m and 36m DP roads, which the petitioners had concealed. The Corporation revoked the permission under Section 51 of the MRTP Act. The petitioners argued that they had invested ₹17 crores and constructed 14 floors, and that the show cause notice was defective. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that fraud vitiates all orders; a party who misleads authorities cannot seek equitable relief; large investments do not legitimise illegal constructions. The court relied on Rajendra Kumar Barjatya (2024) and Kaniz Ahmed (2025).

Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice A. S. Gadkari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kamal Khata (Division Bench)

Date of Judgment: 29th April 2026

Citation: Writ Petition No. 14342 of 2024 (unreported)

Core Law: Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 – Section 51; Principles of Fraud, Misrepresentation, and Equitable Relief

1.  Heading of the judgment

High court of judicature at bombay

Writ petition no. 14342 of 2024

Jhalak construction thr their partners naresh harumal wadhwani & anr. (petitioners) vs. Ulhasnagar municipal corporation & ors. (respondents)

Coram: hon’ble mr. justice a. s. gadkari and hon’ble mr. justice kamal khata (division bench)

Reserved on: 24th april, 2026; pronounced on: 29th april, 2026

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

• Maharashtra regional town planning act, 1966 – section 45 (application for development), section 51 (revocation of permission)

• Principles of fraud, misrepresentation and estoppel – fraud vitiates all proceedings; no equitable relief for wrongdoer

Subject matter of the judgment:

Whether a builder who obtained development permission by submitting incorrect documents and misleading the municipal corporation is entitled to challenge the revocation of such permission on ground

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.