Dismissed¶25

Ankush S/O Ashok Karare v. Pushpa D/O Gendlal Shivale and Others

Bombay HC8 Jan 2026WP/2415/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Nagpur slum construction permission; intervention application rejected by Additional Collector; petitioner not necessary party; no ownership document produced; mutation occupier since 01.04.2007; Regular Civil Suit No.418 of 2019 pending; 350 sq ft plot Garoba Maidan; Nagpur Municipal Corporation Competent Authority (SLUM); writ petition dismissed, no costs; Rule discharged; neutral citation 2026:BHC-NAG:1112.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner filed no document showing his ownership of the 350 sq ft portion of the plot over which construction permission is sought; consequently, he cannot be considered a necessary party in respondent no.1's pending appeal. ¶23

Ankush S/O Ashok Karare vs Pushpa D/O Gendlal Shivale and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, claiming to be the original owner amid the pendency of Regular Civil Suit No.418 of 2019, was entitled to intervention / to be treated as a necessary party in respondent no.1's appeal before the Additional Collector concerning construction permission over the 350 sq ft property. +1 more

¶19

Court's answer

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The court found the impugned order had given due consideration to the factual and legal aspects, so no indulgence was warranted with it.

¶24

Key takeaways

The rights allegedly claimed by the petitioner fall to be adjudicated in the pending civil suit between the parties; therefore, no interference with the impugned order is warranted.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench (Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J.), Writ Petition No. 2415 of 2025 — dismissed with no order as to costs; Rule discharged. The petitioner, Ankush Ashok Karare, claiming to be the original owner of property no.757/1/A, Ward no.24, Garoba Maidan, Nagpur (350 sq ft), had sought intervention in respondent no.1 Pushpa Gendlal Shivale's pending appeal before the Additional Collector, Nagpur, against the Competent Authority (SLUM), NMC's refusal of her construction-permission application; the petitioner relied on the pendency of Regular Civil Suit No.418 of 2019 (suit for declaration, permanent injunction and possession, per counsel's submission). The Additional Collector's order dated 06.01.2025 rejecting the intervention application was upheld: the petitioner had produced no document of ownership over the 350 sq ft portion, mutation records showed respondent no.1 as occupier since 01.04.2007, the petitioner was not a necessary party, and his alleged rights were left to adjudication in the pending civil suit.

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:1112

¶2

1901WP2415-25.odt 1 Judgment

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 2415 OF 2025

¶5

Ankush Ashok Karare, Age-29 years, Occ-Private, R/o Garoba Maidan, Kapase Chowk, Nagpur.

¶6

PETITIONER

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

Pushpa Gendlal Shivale, R/o 757/1/A, Ward No.24, Garoba Maidan, Kapse Square, Nagpur.

¶9

Executive Engineer/Competent Authority (SLUM), Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Civil Lines, Nagpur.

¶10

Assistant Commissioner, Gandhibagh Zone no.6, Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur.

¶11

The Additional Collector, Nagpur, Civil Lines, Nagpur. RESPONDENTS

¶12

Shri C.Y. Deopujari, counsel for the petitioner. Shri K.C. Gour, counsel for the respondent no.1. Shri A.M. Kukday, counsel for the respondent nos.2 and 3. Shri S.C. Joshi, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.4.

¶13

CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.

¶14

DATE : JANUARY 19, 2026 ORAL JUDGMENT

¶15

RULE. Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 06.01.2025 passed by the respondent no.4 rejecting the application for intervention filed by the petitioner in the pending appeal filed by the respondent no.1.

¶17

The respondent no.1, viz. Pushpa Gendlal Shivale had filed an application before the Competent Authority, Nagpur Municipal Corporation (Slum) for grant of permission to make construction over the property bearing no.757/1/A situated at Ward no.24, Garoba Maidan,

¶18

1901WP2415-25.odt 2 Judgment

¶19

Kapse Chowk, Nagpur admeasuring 350 square feet. The said application was rejected by the Competent Authority and therefore the respondent no.1 had filed an appeal before the respondent no.4-Additional Collector, Nagpur. The petitioner herein claiming himself to be the original owner of the said property filed an application for intervention in the said appeal and contended that Regular Civil Suit No.418 of 2019 in between the parties is pending before the trial Court. The respondent no.4 rejected the application for intervention by order dated 06.01.2025, which is subjected to challenge by way of instant petition.

¶20

The primary contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the plot of land with respect to which the appeal is pending was earlier owned by the petitioner’s father and the respondent no.1 has forcibly encroached upon the said property on the basis of a false and fabricated agreement. He submitted that the petitioner had already filed the suit for declaration, permanent injunction and possession against the respondent no.1 which is pending and as such any permission of construction would be against the rights of the intervenor. He submitted that the respondent no.4 failed to consider the valuable rights of the petitioner and in view of pendency of civil suit, ought to have allowed the application for intervention.

¶21

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the respondent no.4 has categorically observed that the petitioner/intervenor has failed to point out any document showing his ownership and in view of the documents of mutation about the property in question, the respondent

¶22

1901WP2415-25.odt 3 Judgment

¶23

no.1 is shown as occupier since 01.04.2007. By considering the fact that the respondent no.1 is occupying the property since many years, the entitlement of the respondent no.1 for seeking permission of construction is required to be adjudicated independently. Pertinent to note, the petitioner has failed to file on record any document showing ownership of the petitioner over the said portion of plot admeasuring 350 square feet on which permission of construction is being sought by the respondent no.1. As such, in the appeal filed by the respondent no.1, the petitioner

¶24

cannot be considered to be a necessary party. The respondent no.1 has passed the impugned order after giving due consideration to the factual and legal aspects and as such no indulgence is warranted with the impugned order. Needless to state, the rights allegedly claimed by the petitioner are the subject matter of adjudication in the pending suit in between the parties and as such no interference is warranted with the impugned order.

¶25

The writ petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule stands discharged.

¶26

(PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.)

¶27

APTE

¶28

Signed by: Apte Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 23/01/2026 13:23:19

Ankush S/O Ashok Karare v. Pushpa D/O Gendlal Shivale and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankush S/O Ashok Karare v. Pushpa D/O Gendlal Shivale and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Nilesh Vasantrao Kale vs Divisional Jt. Registrar Co-Operative Society, Amravati Division, Amravati and Ors.

Mana Devi W/O Thakur Prasad Gupta and Others vs Krishnamurari S/O Parasnath Pandey

Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., through Branch Manager, Nagpur vs Kamla W/O Vinayakrao Gainer and Others

Shailesh S/O Sheshrao Bhoyar vs Sheshrao S/O Krushnarao Bhoyar and Others

Smt. Ahilyadevi Kundalal Jaiswal (Dead) and Others vs Sau. Rajkumar @ Dipmala Dipak Thakurwar

Pramod S/O Mangilal Chawan vs Smt. Anjanabai Manikrao Ughade