Bombay High Court
HRIDAYNATH D KADU DESHMUKHversusSURENDRA DATTATRAY KADU AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the October 2023 order did not decide the title dispute or the grant of TDR/DRC, leaving those issues to be determined in appropriate proceedings.
Summary
The Applicant, half‑brother of Petitioners, sought clarification of the High Court's order dated 20 October 2023 in Writ Petition No. 5618 of 2014, alleging that the order had not decided the title of a property in Dhankawadi, Pune or the issuance of TDR/DRC. The property, originally belonging to the parties' father, was acquired by the Corporation, and a joint application for TDR/DRC had been rejected. The Court examined the earlier order and found that it never addressed the title dispute or the grant of TDR/DRC to either side. Consequently, the Court clarified that the title issue and the entitlement to TDR/DRC remain open and must be litigated in appropriate proceedings before the Corporation. The interim application for clarification was therefore disposed of without any order as to costs.
Issues considered
- Did the order dated 20 October 2023 adjudicate the title of the property or the grant of TDR/DRC in favour of either party?
- Can the interim application seeking clarification be entertained when the earlier order did not decide the title dispute?
- Should the Corporation hear both the Petitioners and the Applicant before granting any TDR/DRC?
Subjects
- title dispute
- TDR
- DRC
- property acquisition
- interim application
- clarification of order
- High Court
- Civil appellate jurisdiction
Judgment
2026:BHC-AS:11037-DB
2-IA-13882-2024.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 13882 OF 2024
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 5618 OF 2014
Hridaynath D. Kadu Deshmukh .. Applicant
In the matter between
Surendra Dattatray Kadu and Ors. .. Petitioners
Versus
The Principal Secretary and Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. P.K. Dhakephalkar, Sr. Advocate (through V.C.), with
Adv. Jagdish G. Aradwad (Reddy) & Adv. Ashwini A. Jadhav, for the
Applicant.
Adv. Nitin Deshpande, with Adv. Santosh Karade, for the
Petitioners.
Adv. R.S. Khadapkar, for Respondent Nos. 3 to 5.
CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA &
RAJESH S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE: MARCH 4, 2026
P. C.
1. The above Interim Application is filed seeking a clarification of
the judgment and order dated 20th October 2023, passed by this Court in
Writ Petition No. 5618 of 2014 to the limited extent that this Court has not
Page 1 of 4
MARCH 4, 2026
Darshan Patil
2-IA-13882-2024.doc
expressly decided the issue of title in respect of property bearing Survey
No.13 Hissa No.2/1B/2/1 situated at Dhankawadi, Pune (for short “the said
property”), or issuance of the TDR/DRC in lieu of the same, either in favour
of the Petitioners or in favour of the Applicant (original Respondent No.9 in
the above Petition).
2. This clarification is sought on the basis that the Applicant is
admittedly the half-brother of Petitioner No.1, and the said property
originally belonged to their father. The said property was thereafter acquired
and towards compensation, a joint application (by the Petitioners and the
Applicant) was made to the Corporation for grant of TDR/DRC. This was
rejected by the Corporation, which was challenged in the above Writ Petition.
The above Writ Petition was ultimately allowed by order dated 20th October
2023, and the Corporation was directed to grant TDR/DRC for the
acquisition of the said property.
3. On going through the order passed by the Bench of this Court [to
which one of us (Rajesh S. Patil, J.) was a member], the issue of the dispute
between the Petitioners and Applicant was never adjudicated in the above
Writ Petition. The same is clear from a reading of the order dated 20th
October 2023. Once this is the case, we clarify that in the order dated 20th
Page 2 of 4
MARCH 4, 2026
Darshan Patil
2-IA-13882-2024.doc
October 2023, this Court has not decided any title dispute in respect of the
said property, or the issuance of TDR/DRC in view of the same, either in
favour of the Petitioners or in favour of the Applicant. That issue will be
decided, if at all, in appropriate proceedings.
4. All contentions of both parties are expressly kept open in respect
of the title dispute or grant of TDR/DRC, to be agitated in an appropriate
proceeding and before the appropriate forum/authority.
5. In light of the above clarification Mr. Dhakephalkar, the learned
Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant (original Respondent
No.9) does not correctly press prayer clause (c) of the above Interim
Application.
6. Since we have clarified that the issue of title and/or granting of
TDR/DRC either to the Petitioners or original Respondent No.9 was not the
subject matter of the order of which clarification is sought, the Corporation
shall hear the Petitioner as well as Respondent No.9 before granting any
TDR/DRC to either of the parties.
Page 3 of 4
MARCH 4, 2026
Darshan Patil
2-IA-13882-2024.doc
7. The above Interim Application is disposed of in the aforesaid
terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
8. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/
Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax
or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.
[RAJESH S. PATIL, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]
Page 4 of 4
MARCH 4, 2026
Darshan Patil
Signed by: Darshan Patil
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 06/03/2026 18:09:13
Checking your session…