Disposed

M/S Rahul Properties, Nagpur, Thr. Its Partner, Gaurav a. Agarwala v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Prin. Secretary, Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Bombay HC8 May 2026WP/3958/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought exemption from extension charges after failing to comply with a Section 20 Urban Land Ceiling order; its representation to the State was pending. The Court directed respondents 1-3 to decide the representation dated 27.03.2026 within four weeks and disposed of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Respondents 1-3 directed to decide petitioner's representation dated 27.03.2026 for grant of exemption within four weeks; petition disposed of, no costs.

M/S Rahul Properties, Nagpur, Thr. Its Partner, Gaurav a… — Land Acquisition | Bombay HC (2026)

¶1

2026:BHC-NAG:7248-DB

¶2

119-WP-3958-26.odt

¶3

¶4

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

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 3958 OF 2026 M/s Rahul Properties, Nagpur

¶6

.Vs.

¶7

State of Maharashtra and ors.

¶8

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,

¶9

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

¶10

and Registrar's Orders.

¶11

Mr Kartik Shukul, a/by Shri Raghav Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr N. S. Rao, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 4/State.

¶12

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. DATED : 08th MAY, 2026 .

¶13

Heard.

¶14

The petitioner has applied to the Competent Authority under Sections 8 (4) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (for short ‘the Act’) for declaration of surplus land. It is the petitioner’s contention that he was unable to comply the terms and conditions of the order dated 26.03.2004 passed under Section 20 of the Act within stipulated period, due to unavoidable or uncontrolled reasons. The petitioner has been served with a demand notice for grant of extension for non-compliance of terms and conditions of the said order.

¶15

It is the petitioner’s contention that he made a representation dated 27.03.2026 to the State Government (page 133), however it has not been decided. Learned Assistant Government Pleader brought to our notice that Government Resolution dated 18.02.2015 has clarified that

¶16

2 119-WP-3958-26.odt

¶17

the State Government is empowered to exempt the charges on extension in terms of the mechanism provided under G.R. dated 18.11.1992. It reveals that though the petitioner has applied to the State Government, till date no decision has been taken by the respondent no.1 State. Since the State has made a provision for granting exemption in befitting cases, the matter needs to be assessed by the State in terms of G.R. dated 18.11.1992. It is evident that though the petitioner made a representation on 27.03.2026 till date no decision has been taken, hence certain directions are to be issued to that effect.

¶18

In view of the above, respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 are directed to decide the petitioner representation dated 27.03.2026 for grant of exemption, within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶19

The petition stands disposed of accordingly. No

¶20

costs.

¶21

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

¶22

Namrata

¶23

Signed by: Miss Namrata Suryawanshi Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 08/05/2026 19:41:34

M/S Rahul Properties, Nagpur, Thr. Its Partner, Gaurav a. Agarwala v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Prin. Secretary, Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Rahul Properties, Nagpur, Thr. Its Partner, Gaurav a. Agarwala v. State of Maharashtra, Thr. Prin. Secretary, Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shailendra Purushottam Bute vs Smt. Nayana Gunde, the Divisional Commissioner, Amravati

Black Sansui Electronic Weight, Thr. Prop. a. M. Gumfalwar, Nagpur vs the Controller of Legal Metrology, Maha. State, Mumbai and Ors.

Shri Ganesh Bahuudeshiya Shikshan Sanstha, Mogra, Thr. President and Another vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Dept. of School Education, Mumbai and Ors.

Maharashtra Vidyut Nigam Pvt. Ltd. Thr. Director Santosh Kumar Dhanuka vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax CIRCLE-2, Nagpur and Anr.

M/S Sandeep Dwellers Private Limited, Thr. Director, Gaurav a. Agarwala vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Prin. Secretary, Urban Development Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Smt. Fatimabi W/O Abdul Rauf vs the Project Manager (Prakalp Adhikari), Women and Child Welfare Dept., Yavatmal and Ors.