Created by Fuzzy Cloud

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

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


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.