Bombay High Court

Bombay High Court: Radha Vishweshwar Society's Land Dispute Partially Resolved

Updated
Nov 14, 2025 10:38 PM
News Image

Quick Summary: In a heated court case, Radha Vishweshwar Cooperative Housing Society is challenging New Bansi Park Cooperative Housing Society over land rights and redevelopment plans. Judge Sandeep V. Marne has made a decision that partially satisfies both parties, but the drama isn’t over yet!

The Players

Radha Vishweshwar Cooperative Housing Society, representing Building No. 2, is up against New Bansi Park Cooperative Housing Society, which manages Building No. 1. Both societies are tangled in a dispute over who gets what piece of land for redevelopment.

The Dispute Begins

Radha Vishweshwar wants to stop New Bansi Park from moving forward with its redevelopment plans. They argue that New Bansi Park is taking more land than they should, based on old agreements and court orders.

"Plaintiffs believe they are entitled to own 66.59% share in the land," the judgment notes.

The Background

Originally, Comproind Pvt. Ltd. owned the land, which was later sold to different parties. Over the years, both buildings were constructed using different rules for how much building space could be used, leading to the current clash.

The Court's Take

Judge Sandeep V. Marne had to figure out complicated land agreements and rules about building space. He decided that New Bansi Park could go ahead with redevelopment but only on a limited portion of the land—2276 square meters, to be exact.

"A fair decision needs to be made considering the unique facts and circumstances of the case," said Judge Marne.

The Decision

The court allowed New Bansi Park to redevelop but restricted them to using only the land they are entitled to, based on their building’s size. This leaves Radha Vishweshwar with the rest, but they’re still not entirely happy.

What's Next?

Radha Vishweshwar’s request to delay the order was denied, meaning New Bansi Park can start their redevelopment under the new terms. This case shows how complicated land rights and redevelopment can be in crowded cities.