Bombay High Court
ROHIT DHANESH RUKE AND ORSversusDURGA CO-OP. HSG. SOCIETY LTD. AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that the review petition cannot be decided within the limited review jurisdiction and that the substantive disputes must be resolved in separate proceedings.
Summary
The Review Petitioners, Rohit Dhanesh Ruke and others, sought a review of a 24 April 2026 order that allowed Durga Co‑op. Housing Society Ltd. to close a road they claimed to use for access to their plots. They relied on earlier NA orders and layout plans dating from 1985 onward, asserting a right of way, and argued they were not heard when the original order was passed. Durga CHS contended that earlier applications for the road had been considered and that the Review Petitioners were attempting to revive a settled dispute. The Court observed that the Review Petitioners were indeed not heard and that the village panchayat, which could have raised the issue, did not appear, but noted that the matters raised are substantive and beyond the limited scope of a review. Consequently, the Court declined to decide the merits in the review proceeding, directing that any further actions be pursued in appropriate proceedings, and disposed of the interim application and review petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the Review Petitioners have a legal right of access over the road through Durga Co‑op. Housing Society based on prior NA orders and layout plans.
- Whether the order under review was passed without affording a hearing to the Review Petitioners, violating principles of natural justice.
- Whether the Court can entertain the review petition given the limited jurisdiction of review proceedings.
- Whether the substantive disputes between the parties should be decided in separate proceedings rather than in a review.
- Whether the failure of the village panchayat to appear affects the rights and remedies of the parties.
Subjects
- right of way
- co‑operative housing society
- review petition
- interim application
- NA orders
- access road
- natural justice
- village panchayat
- PMRDA
- procedural fairness
Judgment
7-ia-6799-2026-rpwst-24845-2026 @.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 6799 OF 2026
WITH
REVIEW PETITION (ST) NO. 24845 OF 2026
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 1289 OF 2000
Rohit Dhanesh Ruke And Ors. ...Applicants/Review
Petitioners
Versus
Durga Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd. And Ors. ...Respondents
SNEHA
NITIN ****
CHAVAN
Digitally signed
Dr. Uday Warunjikar a/w Mr.Aditya Shirke, Mr. Sumit Kate i/b Mr. Parth
by SNEHA
NITIN CHAVAN Deshpande for the Applicants/ Review Petitioners.
Date: 2026.09.09
19:45:27 +0530 Mr. Ashok Tajane a/w Mr. Yogesh Thorat, Yuvraj Tajane for Respondent
No.1/original Petitioner.
Mr. Yuvraj Patil, AGP for Respondent/State.
****
CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
DATE : 9th SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C. :
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Interim Application No. 6799 of 2026 is filed for seeking leave
to file review. Review Petition is filed seeking review of order dated
24.04.2026 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1289 of 2000 (‘the
Order under review’ for short).
3. Learned counsel Mr. Warunjikar submitted that the Order
under review has resulted in closure of the road in question by original
Petitioner-Durga Co. Op. Housing Society Ltd. (‘Durga CHS’ for short)
Sneha Chavan 1
7-ia-6799-2026-rpwst-24845-2026 @.doc
by erection of two gates and physically stopping thoroughfare. It is
submitted that Review Petitioners were not heard when the impugned
order was passed and they are the affected parties, using the road in
question passing through Durga CHS.
4. Certain sanctioned plans and layout are relied to contend that
subject matter road is the access road for Review Petitioners’ plots and
structure/bungalow thereon. Review Petitioners are relying upon the
NA orders of November 1985 onwards stated to be granted in favour of
their predecessors and a sanctioned layout plan dated October and
November 1985 of the Review Petitioners’ plots making reference to 30
feet wide access from approved layout road between property of Durga
CHS and some other Karla Co-operative Housing Society. Based on
these documents, it is contended that Review Petitioners have right of
access through Durga CHS.
5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for original Petitioner
Durga CHS, Mr. Tajane, has tendered and relied upon affidavit in reply
affirmed on 09.09.2026 to the above Interim Application, which is
taken on record. He submits that in the Order under review, reference is
already made to an earlier application made on behalf of Deccan
Development Corporation in 1988 to the Tahsildar and at that time the
Petitioner society had submitted necessary documents and proof before
the Tahsildar and no order was passed. He submitted that persons at
whose instance the road in question was granted under the order of
Tahsildar dated 20.01.2000, are not making any grievance, but through
Review Petitioners, an effort is being made to reopen the dispute on
merits.
6. I have considered the rival submissions. Indeed a reference to
Sneha Chavan 2
7-ia-6799-2026-rpwst-24845-2026 @.doc
earlier application by Deccan Development Corporation is made in the
Order under review. Perusal of NA orders produced on behalf of Review
Petitioner makes reference to same Deccan Development Corporation,
who are stated to be predecessors of Review Petitioners. It is therefore
apparent that predecessor of Review Petitioners had tried to make an
application in respect of road in question earlier in 1988 but, at that
time, no order was passed. This is already considered by the Court.
7. Another NA permission is relied upon by learned Counsel for
the Review Petitioners, which is apparently of 05.11.1990 referring to
application by D.D. Desai Proprietor Desai Promoter, produced by
Tahsildar alongwith his reply to the petition (page 80-83). In this order,
there is a condition that roads and open place provided in the layout
shall be maintained, otherwise they should be handed over to Village
panchayat and shall be kept open for public and roads shown in the
layout shall be open for adjacent holder. This order is about S. No.
125/2 Gat No. 298.
8. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner have categorically
stated on instructions that said NA order of 1980 is not about the
Petitioner’s property. Apparently, the subject matter of the petition was
survey No. 128/21, 141 and 142/4B. NA order relied upon by the Writ
Petitioner dated 27.03.1967 was also in respect of survey No. 128, 141
and 142/B. Therefore, on bare reading NA order dated 05.11.1990 in
favour of DD Desai Proprietor Desai Promoter does not seem to be
about Durga CHS. NA order relied upon by Durga CHS is much prior in
point of time of March 1967, does not require the Petitioner-Society to
keep any roads open for access to others.
Sneha Chavan 3
7-ia-6799-2026-rpwst-24845-2026 @.doc
9. Therefore, apparently when the subsequent NA orders (relied
upon by the Review Petitioners) were passed in November 1985
onwards, the scope of conditions upon Durga CHS, availability of the
road through the Society, whether it is disputed or not disputed, was
not considered by a concerned Authorities and sanctions in favour of
the Review Petitioners seem to have been granted. If that be so, the Writ
Petitioner Durga CHS cannot be held responsible for the same.
10. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, many disputed
questions are raised by the Review Petitioners and therefore it is not
possible to adjudicate them in the limited review jurisdiction.
11. Mr. Warunjikar, learned Counsel for the Review Petitioners
have also relied upon the recent development permissions and
commencement certificates issued by Pune Metropolitan Region
Development Authority, Pune (‘PMRDA’ for short) in favour of Review
Petitioners contending that this aspect could have been brought to the
notice of the Court either by Petitioners or by local Village Panchayat. It
is important to note that the Petitioner-society can not be presumed to
have knowledge about such permissions granted by the Authority in
favour of third persons like Review Petitioners. But certainly, concerned
Village Panchayat could have pointed out these developments, but they
have chosen not to do so, for reasons best known to its office bearers.
12. However, considering that indeed Review Petitioners were not
heard when the order under Review was passed and the concerned
Village Panchayat chose not to appear before this Court at the relevant
time, it is necessary that the Petitioner’s remedies under law must be
kept open.
Sneha Chavan 4
7-ia-6799-2026-rpwst-24845-2026 @.doc
13. Therefore, if any proceedings are filed by the Review
Petitioners against Writ Petitioner-Durga CHS or the concerned
Authorities or concerned Tahsildar or Collector or PMRDA or their own
predecessors, the same shall be decided in accordance with law and
without being influenced by the observations made in the Order under
review or the present order. All contentions on merits between the
Review Petitioners and Writ Petitioner-Durga CHS, are kept open.
14. Interim Application as well as Review Petition are disposed of
in above terms. No order as to costs.
15. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed
QR verifiable copy of this order.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)
Sneha Chavan 5
Checking your session…