Dismissed¶6

Kanhaiyalal S/O. Shamdas Tolani v. Nagpur Improvement Trust, Thr. Its Chairman, Nagpur and Others

Bombay HC25 Mar 2026WP/2489/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Kanhaiyalal Tolani v. Nagpur Improvement Trust, W.P. No. 2489/2026, Bombay HC Nagpur Bench, DB (Anil S. Kilor & Raj D. Wakode, JJ.), decided 25-03-2026 [2026:BHC-NAG:4866-DB]. Keywords: demolition notice 25.02.2026; unauthorized/illegal construction without permission; Nagpur Improvement Trust (NIT); call for documents notice 25.02.2025; sanctioned plan not submitted; no interference; writ petition dismissed; no costs; pending applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

None — writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs; pending applications disposed of. ¶6

Kanhaiyalal S/O. Shamdas Tolani vs Nagpur Improvement Trust, Thr. Its Chairman, Nagpur and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:4866-DB

¶2

1.wp.2489.2026.odt

¶3

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 2489 OF 2026

¶6

Kanhaiyalal S/o. Shamdas Tolani

¶7

.Vs.

¶8

Nagpur Improvement Trust, Nagpur and others

¶9

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,

¶10

appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders.

¶11

and Registrar's Orders.

¶12

Mr S. R. Kadam, Advocate for the petitioner/s

¶13

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. th DATED : 25 MARCH , 2026 .

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶15

By this writ petition, the petitioner is raising a challenge to the notice dated 25.02.2026, which was issued by the respondent-NIT for demolition of alleged illegal construction, made by the petitioner, for the reasons that no permission was obtained by the petitioner for making such construction.

¶16

Having gone through the record, it is evident that no permission was obtained by the petitioner for carrying out the such construction, which has been declared illegal by the respondent.

¶17

The petitioner was asked to submit all the relevant documents long back vide notice dated 25.02.2025. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted certain documents in response to the same. However, at the same time, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admits that the sanctioned

¶18

2 1.wp.2489.2026.odt

¶19

plan was not the part of such documents. He submits that latter was submitted to the respondents on 24.06.2025 stating that the petitioner is in the process of preparing plan and the moment it is prepared, the same will be submitted.

¶20

When this matter come up today for hearing, even after nine months, the petitioner could not point out any such plan submitted by the petitioner.

¶21

In the absence of any such document and since it is not the petitioner’s case that the construction made by him does not require any permission, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned notice.

¶22

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶23

[RAJ D. WAKODE, J] [ANIL S. KILOR, J.]

¶24

Namrata

¶25

Signed by: Miss Namrata Suryawanshi Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 26/03/2026 18:54:53

Kanhaiyalal S/O. Shamdas Tolani v. Nagpur Improvement Trust, Thr. Its Chairman, Nagpur and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanhaiyalal S/O. Shamdas Tolani v. Nagpur Improvement Trust, Thr. Its Chairman, Nagpur and Others

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

Similar cases

Pooja W/O Rakesh Gandhi, Thr. Her P.O.a., Mr. Rakesh S/O Shantilal Gandhi vs Bank of India, Arb, Nagpur Zone, Nagpur, Thr. Authorised Officer

Akshat S/O Rajiv Garg vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Siddharth S/O Sudam Bhalerao vs Baliram Barkuji Mapari, Chairman, Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Nagpur and Ors.

Namdeo S/O. Domaji Ingole vs the State of Maharashtra, Department of Revenue, Thr. Principal Secretary, Mumbai and Ors.

Altaf Ahmad vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Dept. of Revenue and Forest, Mumbai and Others

Courts on Its Own Motion vs the State of Maharashtra, Department of Forest and Revenue, Mumbai Thr. Secretary and Ors.