Lavleshkumar Rambachan Singh vs The Commissioner Advocate - Yadav Shashanka Ajit — 87/2025
Case under Specific Relief Act Section 34,37,38,39. Status: Issues. Next hearing: 17th April 2026.
R.C.S. - Regular Civil Suit
CNR: MHPU100000882025
Next Hearing
17th April 2026
e-Filing Number
13-02-2025
Filing Number
97/2025
Filing Date
13-02-2025
Registration No
87/2025
Registration Date
13-02-2025
Court
Civil Court,Pcmc
Judge
1-C.J.J.D. And J.M.F.C., P.C.M.C. Akurdi
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
Lavleshkumar Rambachan Singh
Adv. Rajan Ladkat, Ladkat Rajan Pandurang
Respondent(s)
The Commissioner Advocate - Yadav Shashanka Ajit
The Designated Officer Alias Regional Officer
Adv. Yadav Shashanka Ajit
Hearing History
Judge: 1-C.J.J.D. And J.M.F.C., P.C.M.C. Akurdi
Issues
Issues
Order on Exh
Order on Exh
Argument on Exh.____Unready
| Date | Purpose | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 07-03-2026 | Issues | |
| 28-01-2026 | Issues | |
| 17-01-2026 | Order on Exh | |
| 03-01-2026 | Order on Exh | |
| 17-12-2025 | Argument on Exh.____Unready |
Interim Orders
Summary: The Civil Judge rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction against PCMC's demolition notice dated 20/01/2025 issued under Section 53 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act, 1966. The court found no prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable loss as required for injunction, noting that the plaintiff failed to provide authorized construction permission, the property ownership was disputed (jointly held with another person), and unauthorized structures pose public safety risks including fire hazards. The court upheld the authority's right to remove unauthorized construction in public interest. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Summary: The Civil Judge rejected the plaintiff's application for temporary injunction against PCMC's demolition notice dated 20/01/2025 issued under Section 53 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act, 1966. The court found no prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable loss as required for injunction, noting that the plaintiff failed to provide authorized construction permission, the property ownership was disputed (jointly held with another person), and unauthorized structures pose public safety risks including fire hazards. The court upheld the authority's right to remove unauthorized construction in public interest. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts