When the Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar Municipal Corporation (CSMC) sent bulldozers pre-dawn to pull down houses in connection with the search for Nashik TCS case accused Nida Khan, they may have razed one structure wrongly. This is what Hanif Khan, 31, has alleged, in his petition to the Bombay High Court.
On Monday, hearing his plea along with that of AIMIM corporator Matin Patel, premises linked to whom were also demolished, the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court Monday slammed the CSMC, saying it did not appear to have followed procedures in carrying out the action.
The demolition drive on May 13 covered two properties allegedly linked to Patel as well as the house where Nida stayed, which Khan says he had bought. Additionally, neighbouring structures, including a building material shop and another residential property, were also demolished.
Khan, a handyman who takes up small construction jobs, says he had bought the 600 sq ft house, in Chhatrapati Sambhaji’s Kauser Bagh, just two months earlier. Patel, an acquaintance, sought his permission to use it during the period Nida was allegedly sheltered there briefly by him, as per Khan.
All his family’s savings had gone into the house, and he had all the papers, he told The Indian Express. Documents submitted by him in court show that he and his brother-in-law purchased the house for Rs 27 lakh, through a registered sale deed executed on March 12 this year, at the Joint Sub Registrar Office in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar.
Hanif Khan submits papers establishing he bought the house where Nida Khan briefly stayed
Nida, one of the TCS employees facing allegations of conversion attempts at the Nashik office, reportedly was living there when police were looking for her.
Asked about Khan and Patel’s submissions to court regarding the demolition, the CSMC said it had followed all due procedures, and that the structures razed were unauthorised. On why a notice purportedly bearing Matin Patel’s name was initially pasted on a property which Khan says was his, Chhatrapati Shivaji Mayor Sameer Rajurkar told The Indian Express: “It is the administration which drafted the notice and they will be in a better position to answer these questions.”
Story continues below this ad
Officials from the corporation’s Encroachment Department declined to comment, saying the matter was sub-judice.
Recalling how he stood watching as his house was brought down, Khan says: “It was heartbreaking. This was the first house the family had ever owned… We thought instead of spending our life in rented homes, we should buy something of our own… We were waiting to renovate it before shifting in.”
Khan told court he and brother-in-law Syed Sarwar Syed Afsar had purchased the property from one Aamer Khan Akhtar, paying Rs 3 lakh as earnest money in February and the remaining Rs 24 lakh at the time of registration.
According to Khan, sometime in the first week of May, Patel, whom he describes as a friend and local political figure, asked if he could use the premises temporarily. “He said some guests were coming. Since he was known to us and was a local corporator, I did not hesitate,” Khan says.
Story continues below this ad
On May 8, police arrested Nida from the premises. A day later, the civic corporation sent a notice alleging that the house where she was found was “illegal” and lacked municipal permissions.
In their writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Khan and his relatives said the notice was initially issued in the name of “Matin Shaikh” – purportedly a reference to Matin Patel. Later, Khan and Syed said, municipal officials added their names onto the notice by hand, before affixing it to the structure.
In a separate petition, Patel said his family owned some of the properties that were demolished since 1992, had regularly paid taxes on them and obtained municipal no dues certificates before the 2025 corporation elections that he fought and won.
Accusing the civic body of denying him a fair hearing, Patel called the demolition politically motivated as the AIMIM to which he belongs is the main Opposition in the municipal corporation.
Story continues below this ad
Soon as they got the notices, Khan as well as Patel first challenged them before the civic authority, asking why they were given only three days to submit ownership and permission documents. They said doing so within such a short period was impossible and sought a 15-day extension. Simultaneously, they moved the Bombay High Court seeking a stay on any demolition action.
“During the hearing on May 12, the CSMC’s lawyer orally assured the court that no action would be taken for seven days. However, the same day, the corporation again pasted a 24-hour notice on these structures. This was to expire at 12 pm on May 13, but they carried out the demolition even before that deadline ended,” Abhaysinh Bhosale, who is representing Khan, told The Indian Express.
In their submission to the court on the demolitions, the petitioners said that mandatory safeguards laid down by the Supreme Court on the issue were not followed, and that the civic body acted arbitrarily. Their lawyers argued that since the structures had already been razed, merely challenging the demolition notices was no longer sufficient and the legality of the demolition action itself must now be examined.
The court permitted the petitioners to amend their pleas accordingly.
