Bombay HC: Housing Society Cannot Claim Exclusive Rights Over Government Access Road

The Bombay High Court has upheld the Maharashtra government's order directing a Khar housing society to remove a gate it had installed on a road passing through government-owned land. Justice Arun R. Pedneker, ruling on 10 September 2026, held that the society could not turn a shared public access route into its own exclusive passage.

Background of the dispute

Deccan Co-operative Housing Society had challenged an order of the Mumbai Suburban Collector directing removal of the gate, arguing it had used and maintained the access for decades and that it formed part of its settled possession. The court found that the strip of land carrying the gate belonged to the government and was never part of the plot allotted to the society in 1959. The society had been given only temporary access because its own plot was landlocked at the time, on condition that this access would end once a proposed 44-feet Development Plan (DP) road was built. That DP road has since been completed and is in use.

What the court decided

The court held that a right of access is not the same as exclusive possession, and that the society had no authority to install a gate controlling who could use government land. At the same time, it directed that the State could not hand exclusive use of the access to any other party either — the route must stay open to the society as well as to others. The court also clarified that the Collector must still follow due process, including proper notice, before physically restricting access.

What this means for housing societies

• A society's long-standing use of adjoining government or municipal land does not by itself create ownership or an exclusive right — permissions granted 'temporarily' or 'until a DP road is built' can be withdrawn once that condition is met.
• Committees should check the actual land title and any conditions attached to access, entry points, or common passages that run through land not owned by the society, especially older buildings allotted plots decades ago.
• Gates, boom barriers, or security cabins placed on any land outside the society's own registered plot boundary carry legal risk and can be ordered removed even without a fresh notice if a prior order already covers it.
• Interim protection obtained in an unrelated civil suit does not automatically extend to structures like gates unless that structure was specifically part of the suit.

Societies with similar shared-access arrangements on government or MHADA land are advised to review their original allotment letters and any conditions on temporary access, and to consult their society's advocate before contesting a Collector's or Registrar's removal order.