Bombay High Court
VINAYAK SHIVRAM INGALEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THRU. A) THE DIRECTOR, BDD CHAWL, B) THE MANAGER, BDD CHAWL
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The petition is disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty to institute fresh proceedings challenging the tenancy transfer order.
Summary
The petitioner, Vinayak Shivram Ingale, filed a writ petition seeking transfer of a tenancy in his name. The State transferred the tenancy on 26 September 2025 to Mr. Pramod Prakash Ingle and Ms. Kalpana Prakash Ingle based on heirship rights. The petitioner later sought to withdraw the petition, requesting liberty to file fresh proceedings challenging the transfer order, alleging it to be non est. The Court held that the petition could be withdrawn and granted liberty to institute fresh proceedings, noting that the challenge to the transfer order could be tested in appropriate proceedings with the transferees impleaded. Consequently, the petition was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as prayed.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner may withdraw the writ petition and obtain liberty to institute fresh proceedings challenging the tenancy transfer order
- Whether the order transferring tenancy on the basis of heirship rights is non est and can be contested in a separate suit
Subjects
- tenancy
- transfer of tenancy
- heirship rights
- withdrawal of writ petition
- non est order
- fresh proceedings
Judgment
Digitally
signed by
NISHA
NISHA SANDEEP 3-wp.2874.2023.doc
SANDEEP CHITNIS
CHITNIS Date:
2026.10.08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
16:17:54
+0530 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2874 OF 2023
Vinayak Shivram Ingale … Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra and Anr. ...Respondents
Mr. Sushil Chaurasia i/b SKC Legal for the Petitioner.
Ms. Anjali Helekar, G.P. with Mr. Manish Upadhye, A.G.P. for the
Respondents-State.
CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.
DATE : 7th OCTOBER 2026
P.C. :
1. In the wake of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the State,
reflecting that the Tenancy which the petitioner sought to have
transferred in his name has further shifted hands, the learned counsel
for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the Writ Petition, with
liberty to institute fresh proceedings challenging the order dated 26 th
September 2025, whereby the Tenancy was transferred, on the basis of
heirship rights, in favour of Mr. Pramod Prakash Ingle and
Ms. Kalpana Prakash Ingle.
N. S. Chitnis 1/2
3-wp.2874.2023.doc
Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the said order is non est, in our view, this submission can be tested
upon the appropriate proceedings being filed, with the aforesaid
persons being impleaded as respondents to the proceedings.
The Petition stands disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty
as prayed.
ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J. BHARATI DANGRE, J.
N. S. Chitnis 2/2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.