Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

CHANDRAKANT VITTHAL PATIL AND ORSversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS DEPT. OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND ORS

Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The petition is dismissed as the cause of action no longer subsists following the planning authority's substantive amendments to the draft.

Summary

The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging the Draft Development Plan of Kavatemahankal Nagar Panchayat, invoking Section 26(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. They alleged that the planning authority had made substantive alterations to the impugned draft. The court observed that such changes had indeed been effected, rendering the petition's cause potentially moot. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition, granting the petitioners liberty to approach the court again if they are aggrieved by any further modifications. All parties' contentions were kept open for future reference.

Issues considered

  • Whether the petitioners' challenge to the Draft Development Plan under Section 26(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, remains viable after substantive changes were made by the planning authority.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • Development Plan
  • Planning Authority
  • Writ Petition
  • Section 26
  • Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act
  • Procedural Law

Judgment

                                                                                        7-WP-13537-2023.doc


                                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                             CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

                                               CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                             WRIT PETITION NO. 13537 OF 2023

                      Chandrakant Vitthal Patil And Ors                               … Petitioners

                                                   Versus

                      The State of Maharashtra & Ors.                                 … Respondents


                                                        ——————
                      Mr. Manoj A. Patil a/w Adv. Ankita D. Mali i/by Adv. S. S. Borulkar for the
                      Petitioners.
                      Mrs. S. N. Deshmukh, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State.
                                                      ——————
                                                       Coram : R.G. AVACHAT &
                                                                 AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, JJ.

                                                            Date     :   13th January 2026.
                      PER COURT :

                      1.        Heard.

                      2.        The Petitioners have filed the present Petition challenging the Draft

                      Development Plan of Respondent No. 6 – Kavatemahankal Nagar Panchayat,

                      published under Section 26(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town

                      Planning Act, 1966.

                      3.        Learned Counsel for the Petitioners fairly submits that certain
TALLE
SHUBHAM               substantive changes have been effected by the Planning Authority to the
ASHOKRAO
Digitally signed by
TALLE SHUBHAM
ASHOKRAO
Date: 2026.01.13      impugned draft.
18:34:44 +0530




                      Shubham                               1 of 2
                                                                7-WP-13537-2023.doc


4.        In view thereof, it appears that the cause raised in the present Petition

may no longer survive. Consequently, the Writ Petition stands disposed of

with liberty to the Petitioners to take appropriate recourse in law, if aggrieved

by the subsequent changes made in the Development Plan.

5.        All contentions of the parties are kept open.



     [ AJIT B. KADETHANKAR, J. ]                      [ R.G. AVACHAT, J. ]




Shubham                               2 of 2


Continue reading with your account

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

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

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