A long-running dispute over approximately 4.5 acres of Goregaon-Malad land has reached the Bombay High Court, with the next hearing scheduled for September 2, 2026. The Nadge family claims protected tribal ownership over the property along Film City Road and alleges that the land was unlawfully occupied and developed under the Jyoti Builders and Developers banner. The dispute includes questions surrounding a 999-year lease executed in 1986 and restrictions under Sections 36 and 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.
Goregaon Tribal Land Dispute: Jyoti Builders Case, Tribal Ownership Claim and September 2 Hearing
A long-running dispute over approximately 4.5 acres of tribal land in Goregaon-Malad has reached the Bombay High Court, with the next hearing scheduled for September 2, 2026.
The Goregaon tribal land dispute involves allegations by the Nadge family that valuable land along Film City Road was unlawfully occupied and developed under the Jyoti Builders and Developers banner.
The disputed property, measuring approximately 4.5 acres, is associated with Tulsibai Rama Nadge and her legal heirs, who claim protected tribal ownership rights over the land.
According to the family, Jyoti Builders and Developers representatives Salim Akbar Lalani and Ghulam Akbar Lalani allegedly relied on a 999-year lease executed in 1986.
The Nadge family alleges that the arrangement resulted in unlawful possession despite restrictions governing transfers of tribal land under Maharashtra revenue legislation.
To view the case-related document - click here
Tribal land protections and the Nadge family’s claim
Section 36 and Section 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code impose restrictions concerning transfers of land belonging to members of Scheduled Tribes.
The Nadge family alleges that these statutory safeguards were bypassed, eventually allowing development on land which they maintain should have remained protected under tribal-land provisions.
The dispute subsequently reached the Bombay High Court, where Salim Akbar Lalani, proprietor of Jyoti Builders, challenged proceedings involving the State Tribal Development Department.
A Bombay High Court order dated April 22, 2024, records Writ Petition No.3144 of 2024 filed by Salim Akbar Lalani, proprietor of Jyoti Builders and Developers, against the State of Maharashtra and others.
The family further alleges that questions were raised regarding whether the claimants actually belonged to a Scheduled Tribe, prompting judicial directions concerning verification of their tribal status.
Following those directions, the Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Konkan Division, Thane, examined documentary material and aspects concerning the family’s community practices.
The scrutiny process reportedly concluded that Raju Rama Nadge, Santosh Rama Nadge and Umesh Laxman Nadge belong to the Warli Scheduled Tribe.
Also Read: BKC Jumbo COVID Centre Under Scanner Over Alleged Fund Irregularities.
2025 revenue order and continuing court proceedings
In 2025, Additional Divisional Commissioner Vikas Maruti Pansare reportedly directed restoration of the disputed land in favour of the Nadge family.
The order also directed that entries reflecting Sections 36 and 36A be restored to the relevant seven-twelve extract, according to the family’s account of proceedings.
The Borivali Tehsildar was reportedly directed to take steps concerning possession of the property and restoration of the land to its original tribal owners.
However, the dispute did not end there, as the builder subsequently challenged aspects connected with the tribal-status verification and the revenue authorities’ proceedings.
Court records also show a later Bombay High Court matter titled Salim Akbar Lalani and Another versus Raju Rama Nadge and Others, registered as Writ Petition (ST) No.33533 of 2025. (Indian Kanoon)
The continuing litigation means the ownership, revenue-record implications, and consequential rights remain matters for judicial determination rather than settled conclusions.
A public notice concerning the Malad property also lists Tulsibai Rama Warli alias Nadge, Umesh Laxman Nagde, Raju Rama Nadge and other Nadge family members among interested parties.
Builder’s response and September 2 hearing
When Sprouts News sought a response from Imtiyaz in connection with the Lalani side, he declined substantive comment, stating that the matter was currently before the court.
Imtiyaz said the parties would abide by whatever order the court passes, while indicating that the next hearing concerning the matter is scheduled for September 2, 2026.
The dispute raises wider questions about protection of tribal land in Mumbai, enforcement of revenue safeguards, development rights and the effectiveness of administrative remedies.
It also highlights the vulnerability of families claiming protected land rights when prolonged litigation intersects with commercially valuable property in rapidly developing metropolitan areas.
For the Nadge family, the immediate issue remains whether the revenue authorities’ directions will ultimately translate into effective protection and possession of the disputed property.
For the developer, the pending proceedings provide an opportunity to contest the allegations and establish its legal position before the competent judicial forum.
The Maharashtra government, revenue authorities and courts will therefore remain central to determining the final status of the land and the validity of competing claims.
Until the judicial process concludes, allegations of illegal transfer, manipulation of revenue records or collusion should not be treated as facts without a final adjudication.
The September 2 hearing is consequently significant because further judicial directions could clarify the status of the disputed property and determine the next stage of the prolonged litigation.
