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
Checking your session…