Haresh Mohandas Lalwani and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra Thr Principal Secretary and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Jan 2025WP/14309/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition 14309 of 2024, Bombay HC, decided 1 April 2025; Lalwani v State of Maharashtra; status quo notice dated 15 July 2024 by SDO Ulhasnagar pending Divisional Commissioner Konkan inquiry into Ulhasnagar-2 lands; petition held premature; disposed with contentions kept open; four-week deadline for Divisional Commissioner's orders; liberty to seek remedies; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of with all contentions of the parties kept open; Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within four weeks; liberty reserved to the petitioners to pursue appropriate remedies if the Divisional Commissioner's view prejudicially affects their rights; no costs. ¶¶27

Haresh Mohandas Lalwani and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra Thr Principal Secretary and Ors. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶¶27

Issue for consideration

Whether the impugned communication dated 15 July 2024 of the Administrative Officer/SDO, Ulhasnagar directing the petitioners to maintain status quo pending the inquiry before the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, calls for interference by this Court.

¶¶3

Court's answer

The impugned communication dated 15 July 2024 merely intended to protect the status quo so that no third party rights are created, as the inquiry is pending before the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division.

¶¶18

Ratio / Principle

This petition is premature and will be required to be disposed of, keeping open all contentions of the parties in the proceedings before the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division and the orders proposed to be passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division.

¶¶19

Key takeaways

If the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division takes a view which in any manner prejudicially affects the rights of the petitioners, the petitioners are free to take recourse to an appropriate remedy as the law may permit; all contentions of the parties in that regard are expressly kept open.obiter¶¶24
The Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division is directed to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks.ratio¶¶26
An intervention was sought to be made during the hearing, however, no intervention application is filed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Coram: G. S. Kulkarni & Advait M. Sethna, JJ., order signed by Advait M. Sethna, J.), Writ Petition No.14309 of 2024, decided 1 April 2025 - Haresh Mohandas Lalwani & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. By an order dated 24 January 2024 on W.P. No.1099 of 2024, this Court had disposed of the earlier petition with directions that the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division look into every aspect of the petitioners' rights and documents in the inquiry he was undertaking regarding their Ulhasnagar-2 lands (Unit Nos.348, 349, Plot No.345 (Part), Sheet No.72; Plots 14/1, 14/2, 14/3 (parts) in front of Barrack No.492). A fresh communication dated 15 July 2024 from the Administrative Officer/SDO, Ulhasnagar then asked the petitioners to maintain status quo pending that inquiry, prompting this petition. The Court held the impugned communication merely intended to protect the status quo so that no third party rights were created, found the petition premature, and disposed of it keeping all contentions open. It directed the Divisional Commissioner to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within four weeks, reserving to the petitioners liberty to seek remedies should the outcome prejudice their rights. No costs. An intervention was canvassed orally but no intervention application was filed.

¶1

WP 14309-2024.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.14309 OF 2024

¶5

Haresh Mohandas Lalwani And Anr. ...Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary And Ors. ...Respondents

¶6

Mr. Girish Agrawal a/w Mr. Shubham Jangam for the Petitioners. Mr. Y.D. Patil, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1-State. Ms. Minal Chandnani for Intervener.

¶7

CORAM : G. S. KULKARNI & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, JJ.

¶8

DATE : 1 APRIL 2025

¶9

P.C.:

¶10

We have heard Mr. Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioners and

¶11

Mr. Patil, learned A.G.P. on behalf of respondent no.1-State. There is an intervention, which is sought to be made, however, no intervention application is filed.

¶12

Mr. Agrawal, at the outset, has fairly drawn our attention to an order 24 January 2024, passed by this Court on Writ Petition No.1099 of 2024. By such order this Court while disposing of the said writ petition issued certain directions, that the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division shall look into every aspect of the petitioners rights and documents, which the petitioners intend to rely upon in the inquiry the

¶13

Page 1 of 3

¶14

Rajesh Chittewan, PS

¶15

WP 14309-2024.doc

¶16

Divisional Commissioner was undertaking in regard to the lands of the petitioners namely lands (1) Unit No.348, 349, Plot No.345 (Part), Sheet No.72, Ulhasnagar-2, (2) Plot No.14/1 (part), Plot No.14/2 (part), Plot No.14/3 (part), in front of Barrack No.492, Ulhasnagar-2.

¶17

The cause for the petitioners to approach this Court, again by the present petition, is in view of the fresh notice, which was issued to the petitioners by the Administrative Officer/SDO, Ulhasnagar, whereby pending such inquiry being held by the Divisional Commissioner, the petitioners have been called upon to maintain status quo in regard to the lands in question by the impugned communication dated 15 July 2024.

¶18

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that the impugned communication dated 15 July 2024, has merely intended to protect the status quo so that no third party rights are created, as the inquiry is pending before the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division. We are also informed that the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, has heard all the parties and is in the process of passing orders.

¶19

In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that this petition is also premature and will be required to be disposed of, keeping open all contentions of the parties in the proceedings before the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division and the orders, which are proposed to be passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division.

¶20

Needless to observe that in the event, the Divisional Commissioner,

¶21

Page 2 of 3

¶22

Rajesh Chittewan, PS

¶23

WP 14309-2024.doc

¶24

Konkan Division takes a view which in any manner prejudicially affects the rights of the petitioners, the petitioners are free to take recourse to an appropriate remedy, as the law may permit. All contentions of the parties in that regard are expressly kept open.

¶25

The Divisional Commissioner, Konkan Division, is directed to pass

¶26

appropriate orders, in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from today.

¶27

Petition stands disposed in the aforesaid terms.

¶28

No costs.

¶29

[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.]

¶30

Rajesh Chittewan, PS

¶31

Page 3 of 3

¶32

Digitally signed by RAJESH RAJESH VASANT VASANT CHITTEWAN CHITTEWAN Date: 2025.04.05 11:10:04 +0530

Haresh Mohandas Lalwani and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra Thr Principal Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haresh Mohandas Lalwani and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra Thr Principal Secretary and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prashant Khandu Narawade S/O. Late Khandu Goving Narawade vs Snehal Prashant Narawade @ Snehal Shirish Suryavanshi

Mrs. Reshita Sandip Chakrabarty vs Dr. Sandip Mrinmoy Chakrabarty

Joseph Albert Fernandes and Ors. vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S. Civiltech India Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. vs the Nashik Ind. Co-Op. Estate Ltd. through Its Chairman and or S

Vaibhav Arun Harnaskar vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Its Honorable Minister State Excise Dept and Ors.

Microvision Technologies through Its Proprietor vs the Registrar /Prothonotary and Senior Master High Court ( Original Side) and Ors.