KALPANA JAGDISH PANDE AND ORS vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROU. THE SEC. URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT AND ORS — IA/2881/2026

Case under Mah. Regional Town Planning Act Section 226. Disposed: Contested--Disposed Off on 17th April 2026.

CNR: HCBM010163562026

CASE DISPOSED

Filing Number

IA/9458/2026

Filing Date

01-04-2026

Registration No

IA/2881/2026

Registration Date

10-04-2026

Judge

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANISH PITALE , HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHREERAM VINAYAK SHIRSAT

Coram

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANISH PITALE , HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHREERAM VINAYAK SHIRSAT

Bench Type

Division

Category

ORDINARY CIVIL ( 30 )

Sub-Category

OTHERS ( 99 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

17th April 2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Disposed Off

Acts & Sections

Mah. Regional Town Planning Act Section 226

Petitioner(s)

KALPANA JAGDISH PANDE AND ORS

Adv. ANIL AHUJA

Respondent(s)

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROU. THE SEC. URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPT AND ORS

Hearing History

Judge: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANISH PITALE , HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHREERAM VINAYAK SHIRSAT

17-04-2026

FOR AMENDMENT

Orders

17-04-2026
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANISH PITALE,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SHREERAM VINAYAK SHIRSAT

The Bombay High Court allowed the petitioners' Interim Application to amend their writ petition against the State of Maharashtra's Urban Development Department. The court found that the proposed amendment did not alter the petition's nature and, given the preliminary stage of proceedings, permitted the amendment with opportunity for respondents to reply. The court set a timeline: amendment within one week, service within two weeks, and respondent replies within three weeks thereafter. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court allowed the petitioners' Interim Application to amend their writ petition against the State of Maharashtra's Urban Development Department. The court found that the proposed amendment did not alter the petition's nature and, given the preliminary stage of proceedings, permitted the amendment with opportunity for respondents to reply. The court set a timeline: amendment within one week, service within two weeks, and respondent replies within three weeks thereafter. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

Cases under same legislation

Mah. Regional Town Planning Act All acts →

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case