PARMANAND DINGRA AND ANRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT AND ORS

                                                                                          10_WP_11380_26.doc



                                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                                  WRIT PETITION NO. 11380 OF 2026

                             Parmanand Dingra and another                           …      Petitioners
                                   vs.
                             The State of Maharashtra,
                             Urban Development Department and others                …      Respondents

                             Mr. Tejesh Dande a/w. Mr. Tanuj Kabra, i/b. Mr. Aniket Shitole for petitioners.
                             Ms. M. S. Bane, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 5 – State authorities.
                             Mr. Abhijit P. Kulkarni a/w. Mr. Abhishek Roy for respondent Nos.2 to 4 – PMC.

                                                                 CORAM :     MANISH PITALE &
                                                                             SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ
                                                                 DATE    :   07th OCTOBER, 2026
                             P.C. :

                             .         Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Respondent Nos.1
                             and 5 – State authorities are represented by Ms. Bane, learned AGP
                             and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 - Pune Municipal Corporation are
                             represented by Mr. Kulkarni, learned counsel.

                             2.        On 31.08.2026, this Court had passed the following order:

                                      ‘1.    When this petition was taken up for consideration,
                                             the learned counsel appearing for Respondents No.
                                             2 to 4 (officers of the Pune Municipal Corporation)
                                             submitted that he would take instructions in the
                                             matter, as the grievance of the petitioners is that
                                             they may be dispossessed from their property
                                             without appropriate steps being taken for
                                             acquisition, determination of compensation, and
                                             payment thereof.
                                      2.     List for further consideration on 16th September
                                             2026, to be included in the category of fresh
                                             matters.
                                      3.     Although the learned counsel for the respondent
                                             Corporation submits that the apprehension of the
                                             petitioners about coercive action is misplaced, we
                                             direct that in the event the respondent Corporation
          Digitally signed
          by PRIYA
PRIYA KAMBLI
KAMBLI Date:
       2026.10.07
          15:00:50 +0530
                                                                                                         1/2
                                                                        10_WP_11380_26.doc



                         intends to take any coercive action, notice of at least
                         72 hours shall be given to the petitioners.’

               3.    The respondents have not filed their reply affidavits. But, since
               they are represented before this Court, the learned counsel for the
               respondents were heard. The prayer in the present petition pertains
               to challenge to a letter dated 26.08.2024 issued on behalf of the
               respondent – Municipal Corporation, stating that the subject land of
               the petitioner would be required for the purposes of road widening
               and that it can be taken over by negotiations and compensation
               could be given in the form of FSI or TDR.

               4.    The learned counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, states
               that the petitioners are not ready to be compensated by way of FSI or
               TDR and that in any case, the respondent – Municipal Corporation
               cannot take possession of the subject land unilaterally and that it
               must follow the due process of acquisition and payment of
               compensation, before taking physical possession of the subject land
               for the purpose of road-widening.

               5.    Considering the grievance of the petitioners, this writ petition
               can be disposed of by issuing appropriate directions.

               6.    In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of by
               directing that in the event the respondent – Municipal Corporation
               requires the subject land of the petitioners i.e. 11944 sq.ft. Land
               located in Survey No.84/6 at Koregaon Park, Mundhwa, Pune, it
               shall proceed strictly in accordance with law, for acquisition thereof,
               either by way of negotiations or compulsory acquisition and upon
               determination of quantum of compensation, pay the same to the
               petitioners before taking physical possession of the subject property.



               (SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.)                         (MANISH PITALE, J.)

Priya Kambli
                                                                                       2/2