Vimal Babu Dhumadiya & Others v. State of Maharashtra & Others 2025 INSC 77

Facts

Everything started with a fight over who really owns a set of apartments built in Maharashtra. Vimal Babu Dhumadiya and a group of other buyers took their case to the Supreme Court, saying their fundamental rights got trampled by a Bombay High Court judgment from July 2024.

The story goes back to a private builder (Respondent No.10) who put up these apartments on land that later turned out to be government property at least, that’s what was alleged. The buyers Vimal Babu Dhumadiya and the rest insisted they bought the apartments in good faith, had no clue about any encroachment, and just wanted to keep living in their homes.

After some back and forth about who really owned the land, the Bombay High Court handed down a decision telling both the builders and the people living there to act in a certain manner which potentially affects the petitioner rights.

The buyers tried to challenge this in the Supreme Court with a Special Leave Petition, but the Court dismissed it in December 2024. They didn’t have better luck with a modification plea before the High Court—rejected again. Left with few options, the buyers filed a writ petition under Article 32, asking the Supreme Court to strike down the High Court’s judgment, regularize their apartments, and stop the State from kicking them out before following proper procedures.

Issues

1. Can the Supreme Court use Article 32 to declare a High Court judgment illegal or void?

2. Is a writ petition under Article 32 even allowed when other remedies exist?

3. Does not hearing the petitioners count as a violation of their fundamental rights?

4. What can someone do if they weren’t heard before a High Court judgment?

Law

The Court looked at Articles 32 which guarantees the right to move the supreme court for the enforcement of fundamental rights and Article 136 of the Constitution empowers the supreme court to grant special leave to appeal against any decree, judgement and order passed by any court or tribunal.

The court also considered the idea of alternate remedies, the pecking order of courts, and the importance of finality in judgments. Precedents like K.K. Kochunni v. State of Madras, Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, and Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. CGIT came up in the discussion.

Petitioners’ Arguments

1. The Bombay High Court made its decision without even hearing the petitioners, who were directly affected parties which is the clear violation of principles of natural justice.

2. The non-hearing and consequent deprivation of their apartments violated their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21.

3. The judgment was illegal and should be tossed out as it was made without hearing the other party (audi alteram partem).

4. The State should regularize their apartments and give them leasehold rights.

5. Authorities should be stopped from evicting them.

Respondents’ Arguments

1. You can’t use Article 32 to challenge a High Court’s judgment the correct remedy was Article 136 not Article 32.

2. If the buyers weren’t happy, they should have used Article 136 or asked the High Court to recall/review its order.

3. The SLP (D No. 59459/2024) was already dismissed by the Supreme court which is the end of the story.

4. Disputes about property ownership and encroachment aren’t about fundamental rights under part III of the constitution.

5. The reliefs sought are administrative and civil issues, not constitutional ones.

Analysis

The Supreme Court made it clear: Article 32 isn’t an appeal process. It’s there to protect fundamental rights, not to overturn High Court judgments. If the buyers had issues with not being heard, they should have gone back to the High Court or filed an appeal under Article 136.

The heart of the matter was really a property dispute not a violation of fundamental rights. The Court emphasized the importance of respecting the court hierarchy and finality of judgments. Letting people re-open dismissed cases through Article 32 would make a mess of the whole system.

Still, the Court didn’t slam the door shut. The buyers were told they could pursue any other legal remedies open to them.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition under Article 32, saying it just wasn’t maintainable. The main takeaways:

1. Article 32 can’t be used to overturn a High Court judgment.

2. If you want to challenge a High Court order, try recall/review before the High Court or appeal under Article 136.

3. There was no violation of fundamental rights here.

4. The petitioners are free to look for other remedies under the law.

5. All pending applications were wrapped up.

This judgment reinforces that Article 32 isn’t a back door for appeals and that the court hierarchy matters. The Court stuck to the rules but still left the door open for the petitioners to seek help elsewhere.

References

1. Vimal Babu Dhumadiya & Others v. State of Maharashtra & Others, 2025 INSC 77.

2. Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1967 SC 1.

3. K.K. Kochunni v. State of Madras, AIR 1959 SC 725.

4. Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal, (1980) 2 SCC 420.

5. L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 261.