Bombay High Court
MANOHAR DYANOBA PANSARE AND ORSversusPIMPRI CHINCHWAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court declined to issue notice to the private respondents and directed the petitioners to file a Section 44 application within two weeks, maintaining the status quo until the competent authority decides.
Summary
The petitioners, Manohar D. Pansare & Ors., sought relief from the High Court to regularise their development on municipal land, invoking a prior judgment that allowed filing an application under Section 44 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. They requested the court to issue notice to private respondents and to stay any further construction. The court, relying on the facts, declined to issue notice to the private respondents and instead directed the petitioners to file a Section 44 application within two weeks, with the competent authority to decide within three months. It ordered that the status quo be maintained pending the application’s disposal, restraining the petitioners from any further development or creation of third‑party rights. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed without granting the relief sought.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to leave to move an application under Section 44 of the MRTP Act for regularisation of their development.
- Whether the court should issue notice to the private respondents in the writ petition.
- Whether a status‑quo order should be imposed pending determination of the Section 44 application.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Development Plan Rules, 1970 — s. Rule 6
- Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 — s. 44
Subjects
- Section 44
- MRTP Act
- development regularisation
- status quo
- municipal corporation
- writ petition
- land development
Judgment
11.WP.12786.2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12786 OF 2026
Manohar Dyanoba Pansare & Ors ...Petitioners
Versus
Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation & Ors ...Respondents
Ms Shradha Sawant for the Petitioners (through VC)
Smt. Neha Bhide, GP a/w. Shri O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. GP a/w. Smt. P. J.
Gavhane, AGP for the Respondent-State
CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.
DATE : 5th OCTOBER, 2026.
P.C.:
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. At the outset, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, who joined through Video
Conferencing relied upon the Division Bench Judgment of this Court dated 28 th
September, 2022 in Nand Lalchand Badlani & Ors. vs. Pimpri Chinchwad
Municipal Corporation through its Commissioner & Ors. 1 wherein leave was
accorded to the Petitioner to move an appropriate Application under Section 44 of
the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short “the MRTP
Act”) read with Rule 6 of the Maharashtra Development Plan Rules, 1970 (for
short “the MDP Rules”). She submits that as the matter is squarely covered by this
Judgment. Accordingly, similar indulgence may be extended in favour of the
Petitioners. In response to the Impugned Notice, the Petitioners are inclined to file
1 Writ Petition No. 8133 of 2022
AKN 1
11.WP.12786.2026.doc
a detailed objection before the Respondent Authorities. She further submits that, at
the same time, Petitioner may be granted leave in terms of the judgment in Nand
Lalchand Badlani & Ors. (Supra) to press their case for regularization before the
Competent Authority in view of the provisions contained under Section 44 of the
MRTP Act read with Rule 6 of the MDP Rules.
3. Considering the factual situation as emerged before us, we are not inclined
to issue notice to the private Respondents. We leave it open to the Petitioners to
move an appropriate Application under Section 44 of the MRTP Act read with
Rule 6 of the MDP Rules. In case any such Application is moved within two weeks
from today, we expect the Competent Authority/Prescribed Authority to process
the claim of the Petitioners in accordance with law preferably within three months
from the date of production of a certified copy of this Order by the Petitioners.
4. Upon hearing the parties and in the given facts we direct that until disposal
of the said Application by the Competent/Prescribed Authorities, parties shall
maintain status quo as on today, which in our view would serve the ends of justice.
The Petitioners are also restrained from carrying out any further
development/construction or creating third party rights/interests, within the
property.
5. With the above observations and directions, the Writ Petition is Disposed
Of.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]
Digitally signed
ANANT by ANANT
KRISHNA NAIK
KRISHNA Date: AKN 2
NAIK 2026.10.06
17:52:35 +0530
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.