PRAKASH GAJANAN BHOIR AND ORS vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECY. TOWN PLANNING MINISTRY AND ANR — IA/3801/2026

Case under Mah. Regional Town Planning Act Section 226. Disposed: Contested--Allowed on 12th June 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCBM010238662026

Filing Number

IA/13995/2026

Filing Date

06-May-2026

Registration No

IA/3801/2026

Registration Date

02-Jun-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

TOWN PLANNING ( 39 )

Sub-Category

OTHERS ( 99 )

Judicial Branch

Civil

Decision Date

12-Jun-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--Allowed

Last updated 14-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Mah. Regional Town Planning Act Section 226

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.PRAKASH GAJANAN BHOIR AND ORS

    Adv. SABHALWAL

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECY. TOWN PLANNING MINISTRY AND ANR

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 12-Jun-2026

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale,hon'ble Shri Justice Shreeram Vinayak ShirsatView PDF

    The Bombay High Court allowed the petitioners' interim application to amend their writ petition, permitting them to add the Director of Town Planning as a party respondent and raise grounds contending that a reservation has lapsed. The court clarified that allowing the amendment does not constitute commenting on the merits of the case, with respondents given three weeks to file comprehensive reply affidavits after receiving the amended petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 12-Jun-2026

    For Amendment

    Hon'ble Shri Justice Manish Pitale , Hon'ble Shri Justice Shreeram Vinayak Shirsat

  4. 06-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. IA/3801/2026

casestatus.in Summary

The Bombay High Court allowed the petitioners' interim application to amend their writ petition, permitting them to add the Director of Town Planning as a party respondent and raise grounds contending that a reservation has lapsed. The court clarified that allowing the amendment does not constitute commenting on the merits of the case, with respondents given three weeks to file comprehensive reply affidavits after receiving the amended petition. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case