Bombay High Court Issues Contempt Notices To Mumbai Collector Tahsildar Over MahaRERA Recovery Warrants

The Bombay High Court on 10 July initiated contempt proceedings against the Collector of Mumbai and Tahsildar Dilip Rayannavar after finding prima facie non-compliance with its directions on execution of Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority (MahaRERA) recovery warrants.

A Division Bench of Justices A. S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata issued show-cause notices under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, holding that the Collector failed to comply with the direction to file a personal affidavit and that the Tahsildar improperly assumed the Collector's role by filing the affidavit. It observed:

“This Court has not authorised or permitted Mr. Dilip Rayannavar to file his Affidavit in this Petition. It was the Collector of Mumbai who was directed to file Affidavit. It is thus apparent that, Mr. Dilip Rayannavar has usurped the powers of Collector of Mumbai. By filing such Affidavit, he has undermined the Authority of this Court. Consequently, he has not only interfered with the due course of judicial proceedings, but has also intentionally interfered and obstructed the administration of justice.”

The proceedings arose from a writ petition filed by Sneha Sachhanand Tejwani concerning execution of recovery warrants issued under the MahaRERA. The Division Bench had repeatedly expressed concern that revenue authorities were not effectively executing MahaRERA recovery orders, allowing judgment debtors to exploit procedural loopholes and delay recoveries.

On 25 February 2026, the Court directed the State to consider measures to ensure timely execution of MahaRERA decrees. It later found the disclosures made by one of the parties inadequate and, by an order dated 8 July 2026, directed the Collector of Mumbai to personally verify and disclose details of entities in which judgment debtor Neeraj Gunvant Kakad or his family members held investments or monetary interests.

When the matter came up on 10 July 2026, the Collector had not filed the affidavit directed by the Court during the morning session. After the matter was taken up again in the afternoon, the State produced an affidavit sworn by Tahsildar Dilip Rayannavar, who stated that he had filed it as the statutory executing authority responsible for implementing the recovery warrant. The State argued that the Collector had authorised the Tahsildar to file the affidavit.

Tejwani opposed the submission, stating that the State had failed to comply with the Court's directions. She also sought appointment of a Court Receiver over a flat allegedly connected with Kakad to secure her claim.

The Court rejected the State's explanation, holding that the affidavit and supporting material did not show that the Collector had authorised delegation of compliance with the Court's order. It noted that the affidavit did not mention any such authorisation and failed to provide the information specifically directed by the Court.

The Bench also held that the Collector failed to comply with the order dated 8 July 2026 and committed an act of contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act. It further found that the Tahsildar made prima facie false statements in his affidavit and directed him to explain why proceedings for making false statements should not be initiated against him.

Accordingly, the High Court issued notices to the Collector of Mumbai and Tahsildar Dilip Rayannavar asking why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them. It also appointed the Court Receiver as receiver of a flat at Dan Kutir CHSL, Khar (West), Mumbai, directing him to take physical possession before 13 July 2026.

The matter is listed for further hearing on 17 July 2026.

Appearances for petitioner (Sneha Sachhanand Tejwani): Advocates Neeta Jain, Mahesh Kukreja, Salman Haider Khan and Shivam Singh.

Appearances for respondent (State of Maharashtra): Government Pleader Anjali Helekar with Advocate Usha Rahi.

Appearances for respondent (Neeraj Gunvant Kakad): Advocates Karl Shroff, Nishit Tanna and Nikhil Sonar, instructed by W3 Legal LLP.