Supreme Court Stays Demolition Of Thane Dargah For 7 Days, Allows It To Seek Recall Of Bombay HC's Demolition Order

The Supreme Court today (June 17) intervened in a dispute over the demolition of an alleged illegal shrine (dargah) in Thane, directing a status quo for seven days while allowing the Pardeshi Baba Trust (“Trust”) to seek a recall of the Bombay High Court's demolition order.

The partial court working days bench comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and Prasanna B Varale heard the case that stemmed from a 23-year-old legal battle over a religious structure that had allegedly expanded from 160 sq. ft. to over 17,610 sq. ft. without municipal approvals on private land in Thane, Maharashtra.

The Bombay High Court in a Writ Petition had ordered the demolition of the unauthorised portions, slamming the Trust for "unscrupulous" expansion and the Thane Municipal Corporation (TMC) for "evasive affidavits."

Assailing the High Court's decision, the Trust represented by Sr. Adv. Huzefa Ahmadi, claimed that the High Court's decision was flawed as it did not consider the fact that the civil suit filed with respect to the construction was dismissed in April 2025. Ahmadi argued that this crucial development was omitted or buried in the pleadings in the High Court. He further stated that only 3,600 square feet of construction was at issue, and that the High Court's focus on the entire 17,610 square feet exceeded the writ petition's scope.

Per contra, the private land owner represented by Sr. Adv. Madhavi Divan accused the Petitioner-Trust of engaging in systematic land encroachment under the guise of religion. She pointed to municipal reports confirming the illegality of the entire structure and alleged that parts of the demolished structure had been rebuilt, showing continued defiance of court orders.

“The trust may be in existence, but when were you allowed? When were you granted permission to raise construction on 17000 square feet of public land? What is the area of the land allotted to the Darga? Let us see. This is private land. This is not public land.”, argued Divan.

After hearing at length, the Court expressed concern over procedural irregularities and factual confusion, especially the lack of clarity on whether the March 10, 2025 demolition directive was fully executed. Justice Mehta remarked that the non-disclosure of the suit's dismissal was "embarrassing" and might have led the High Court to a different conclusion if disclosed earlier.

Considering the point raised by Ahmadi, that the suit's dismissal was not brought to the High Court's attention, the Court permitted them to file a recall application before the High Court to consider the omitted fact. In the event the High Court refuses to hear the recall, it permits the Petitioner-Trust to come back to the Supreme Court.

“what we propose is we give them permission to file a recall in view of the fact that the High Court seems to have omitted the fact, omitted to consider the fact of the disposal of the suit…We will protect them for 7 days.”, the court said.

The Court orally remarked that a detailed order would be uploaded. Until then, it ordered that there would not be further demolition for 7 days and left the question of whether the remaining construction was illegal undecided, urging the High Court to re-evaluate in light of the dismissed suit.

Case Title: GAZI SALAUDDIN REHMATULLA HOOLE ALIAS PARDESHI BABA TRUST Versus NEW SHREE SWAMI SAMARTHA BORIVADE HOUSING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 16699/2025