Virendra Jambukumar Dawada Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Virendra Jambukumar Dawada Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. the Secretary, Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Impugned order dated 8 November 2024 set aside; Respondent No.3 directed to consider the application for grant of final sanction to the layout plan (as approved by the Assistant Director Town Planning, Solapur dated 31 May 2021) on its own merits and expeditiously; petition allowed with no costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Respondent authorities could keep the petitioner's application for sanction of the layout plan in abeyance / decline consideration on the ground that the land was proposed to be acquired, without initiating acquisition proceedings under the provisions of law. +1 more

Court's answer

If Respondent No.2 intends that the land is needed for any purpose, proper steps must be taken under the provisions of law to initiate acquisition proceedings; as of now there is nothing on record to indicate that any steps have been taken for acquiring the subject land, so the request for sanctioning the layout could not be deferred on that ground.

Ratio / Principle

The non-consideration of the petitioner's application for sanctioning of the layout on the ground stated in the impugned order is erroneous.

Key takeaways

Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the petitioner's application for grant of final sanction to the layout plan as approved by the Assistant Director Town Planning, Solapur dated 31 May 2021 on its own merits and expeditiously.ratio¶19

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Circuit Bench at Kolhapur), Civil Appellate Jurisdiction - Writ Petition No.11335 of 2025 (M.S. Karnik & Sharmila U. Deshmukh, JJ.; decided 16 October 2025). The petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 8 November 2024 of the Chief Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Natepute, Solapur (Respondent No.3) and a direction to Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to grant final sanction to his layout plan as approved by the Assistant Director of Town Planning, Solapur dated 31 May 2021. The application had been kept in abeyance in view of a letter dated 9 October 2024 (printed '9st') of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Malshiras, Division Akluj, stating that acquisition of the land was underway. Held: if the Respondent intends that the land is needed for any purpose, proper steps must be taken under the provisions of law to initiate acquisition proceedings; with nothing on record showing any such steps, non-consideration of the application on that ground is erroneous. The impugned order was set aside and Respondent No.3 was directed to consider the application on its own merits and expeditiously. Petition allowed; no costs.

912-wp-11335-2025.doc

Nikita

NIKITA KAILAS DARADE Digitally signedby NIKITAKAILAS DARADEDate: 2025.10.1618:38:40 +0530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.11335 OF 2025

Virendra Jambukumar Dawada ...Petitioner versus

The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents

Mr. Satish Raut a/w Shravan H. Sul for the Petitioner. Mr. Rupesh K. Bobade a/w Ms. Shradha Nakadi for the Respondent No.3.

Mr. V. M. Mali, AGP for the State.

CORAM : M.S. KARNIK &

SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, JJ.

DATE : 16^th OCTOBER, 2025. P.C:

Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 8^th November, 2024 passed by the Chief Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Natepute, Solapur i.e. Respondent No.3. The petitioner further seeks a direction to the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to grant final sanction to the lay out plan as approved by the Assistant Director of Town Planning, Solapur dated 31^st May, 2021 within time bound period. The reason, why the application as filed by the petitioner for grant of final sanction to the lay out plan is not being considered is in view of the letter dated 9^th October, 2024 issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Malshiras, Division Akluj which is

1 of 2

912-wp-11335-2025.doc

at page No.35 of the paper book. As per this communication, the Chief Executive Officer of the Nagar Panchayat of Natepute was informed that the application for sanction of lay out plan be kept in abeyance on the ground that the process of acquisition of said land is underway.

In our opinion, such course ought not to be adopted by the Respondents. If the Respondent No.2 intends that the land is needed for any purpose, then proper steps had to be taken under the provisions of law to initiate acquisition proceedings. As of now, there is nothing on record to indicate that any steps have been taken for acquiring the subject land of which the request for sanctioning the lay out is made.

In this view of the matter, in our opinion, the non consideration of the application made by the Petitioner for sanctioning of the lay out on the ground stated in the impugned order is erroneous.

The Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the application made by the Petitioner for grant of final sanction to the lay out plan as approved by the Assistant Director Town Planning, Solapur dated 31^st May, 2021 on its own merits and in accordance with expeditiously.

The impugned order is set aside. The petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. No costs.

[SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.] [M.S. KARNIK, J.]

2 of 2