Sunil Yeshwant Patil and Anr. v. the State of Maharashtra and 6 Ors.

Bombay HC23 Feb 2026WP/900/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ Petition 900 of 2024, Sunil Yeshwant Patil v. State of Maharashtra, Bombay High Court, decided 23 February 2026 by G. S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe, JJ.; Article 226 petition concerning a 40' TP Road in the DP Plan between new Prabhadevi road and Sayani Road, FP Nos. 937-913, setback/FSI claims against a Developer, proposed court commissioner report, high level enquiry and demolition reliefs; petition withdrawn with liberty to pursue appropriate remedy; all contentions kept open; no adjudication, no citations.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the appropriate remedy as may be available under law; all contentions of the parties expressly kept open. ¶¶23

Sunil Yeshwant Patil and Anr. vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the appropriate remedy as may be available under law; all contentions of the parties expressly kept open.

¶¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether a Superintendent Land Record should be appointed as court commissioner to report on the 40' TP Road joining new Prabhadevi road to Sayani Road shown in the DP Plan moving adjacent to and through the boundary East and West of FP Nos. 937, 939, 931, 914, 940, 929, 930, 917, 916, 913, and on amalgamation of plots with each other. (Relief (a) sought by petitioner; not adjudicated.) +3 more

¶¶14

Ratio / Principle

The Court allowed the writ petition to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to the appropriate remedy as may be available under law.

¶¶23

Key takeaways

All contentions of the parties are expressly kept open.obiter¶¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction — WRIT PETITION NO. 900 OF 2024, Sunil Yeshwant Patil v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (G. S. Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe, JJ.; 23 February 2026). Filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petition sought: (a) appointment of a Superintendent Land Record as court commissioner to report on a 40' TP Road joining new Prabhadevi road to Sayani Road shown in the DP Plan adjacent to and through FP Nos. 937, 939, 931, 914, 940, 929, 930, 917, 916, 913 and on plot amalgamation; (b) a declaration that no set back can be claimed by the Developer after showing the DP Road as a plot of land; (c) a high level enquiry into Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 allegedly showing the DP Road as a plot in connivance with Respondent Nos. 2 to 4; and (d) demolition of Respondent No. 5's building said to be constructed on wrong calculation of set back and FSI. After hearing for some time, counsel for the petitioner, on instructions with the petitioner present in Court, sought withdrawal with liberty; the Court allowed withdrawal with liberty as prayed and expressly kept all contentions open. No issue was adjudicated; no precedent was cited or relied upon.

¶1

Digitally PRASHANTVILASRANE signed byPRASHANTVILAS RANEDate:2026.02.25 12:05:35 +0530

¶2

25WP-900-2024.DOC

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO. 900 OF 2024

¶6

Sunil Yeshwant Patil ...Petitioner VS The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents

¶7

Ms. Aditya Shirke with Sagar Parab with Darshan Suvarna i/b. Vigil Juris, for Petitioners.

¶8

Mr. Anjali Ghuge, for Respondent no.3.

¶9

Ms. Uaymala Ostwal, Addl.Govt. Pleader with Usha Rahi, AGP for State. Mr. Abhishek Khambekar with Chinmay Acharya, for Respondent No.5.

¶10

__________ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & AARTI SATHE, JJ. DATE: 23 February 2026.

¶11

P.C.

¶12

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed seeking the

¶13

following substantive reliefs:

¶14

a) That this Hon'ble Court may be please to appoint Superintendent Land Record as court commissioner and direct them to submit to report on 40' TP Road joining new Prabhadevi road to Sayani Road, has been shown in DP Plan which moves adjacent and through boundary East and West of FP No. 937, 939, 931, 914, 940, 929, 930, 917, 916, 913 and their respective area and direct him to submit report on amalgamation of any plot with each other.

¶15

b) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to after receiving court commissioner report this Hon'ble Court be pleased to declare that no set back can be claimed in present case by the Developer after showing DP Road as a plot of land and any such act on the part of concerned officials of the respondents are patently illegal.

¶16

c) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to after receiving court commissioner report and verifying legality and if this Hon'ble Court found illegality then this Hon'ble Court may be please to direct Respondent I to institute a high level enquiry in the present case where by the Respondent No. 5 and 6 after showing DP Road as a plot of land in connivance of Respondent 2 to 4, officials have claimed set back.

¶17

(d) That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to after receiving court commissioner report and verifying legality and if this Hon'ble Court found illegality then this Hon'ble Court may be please to direct Respondent No. 2 to 4 to demolish the sale building of the Respondent No. 5 which has been constructed on the basis of wrong calculation of set back and FSI.”

Page 1 of 2

P. V. Rane

25WP-900-2024.DOC

After this petition was heard for some time, Mr. Shirke, learned Counsel for the petitioner, on instructions of the petitioner who is present in the Court, and fairly so, seeks leave to withdraw this petition with liberty to the petitioner to

¶22

take recourse to the appropriate remedy as may be available under law.

¶23