Bombay HC Upholds Removal Of Khar Housing Society Gate On Govt Land, Says Access Must Remain Open

Mumbai, September 11, 2026: The Bombay High Court has upheld the Maharashtra government's decision to remove a gate installed by a housing society on land designated for public use, ruling that access to the area must remain unrestricted. Justice Arun R. Pedneker stated that the society could not transform a public route into an exclusive pathway.

However, the court emphasized that the state could not prevent the society from utilizing the access without adhering to proper procedures and issuing adequate notice. The Deccan Co-operative Housing Society challenged an order from the Mumbai Suburban Collector, claiming they had been using and maintaining the access for many years and that the gate was part of their long-standing possession.

Their legal team, led by Pravin Samdani and Bhushan Deshmukh, also argued that the access was considered part of the land allotted to the society in 1959, and that the Collector lacked the authority to order the gate's removal without providing notice or the opportunity to be heard. The court disagreed, noting that the strip of land on which the gate was situated belonged to the government and had not been handed over to the society in 1959.

The society had initially been granted temporary access to the government land because its plot was surrounded by others, and the planned 44-feet-wide Development Plan (DP) road had not been built at that time. The government's permission stipulated that the society should cease using the temporary access once the DP road was completed.

Since then, the road has been constructed and is being utilized by the society. The court clarified that the society's right was limited to a right of access and not exclusive ownership of the government land. "The petitioner has no right to erect a gate on an access road," the court declared, stressing that the government land could not be reserved for the society's exclusive use.

The court also dismissed the society's claim that an interim protection granted in a separate civil suit prohibited the removal of the gate, stating that the gate and access strip were not part of the suit's subject matter.