Nilesh Balakdas Lolusare And Others v. State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secy., Urban Development Department, Mumbai And ORS.

1 115-WP-4580-26.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO.4580 OF 2026 Nilesh Balakdas Lolusare, Tah. Katol, Dist. Nagpur and ors. vs.

State of Maharahstra, Thr. Secretary, Urban Development Dept. Mantralaya, Mumbai and ors. - -- - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Raghav A. Bhandakkar, Advocate for petitioners. Shri A. M. Joshi, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No.1. CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJ D. WAKODE, JJ. DATED : 11th June, 2026 Heard Shri Raghav Bhandakkar, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2.

Contention is that the petitioners herein being interested in purchasing the plots for residential use, approached respondent Nos.4 to 14 in the year 2020. While entering into an agreement to sale with the petitioners, M/s Gangotri Developers had provided a copy of layout map which contained open space and public utility space earmarked as per the Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations, 2020. Accordingly, the petitioners entered into registered sale deed with the aforesaid Developer. However, after receipt of copies of their respective sale deeds, the petitioners realized that the sanctioned map which is attached with the sale deed does not have any public utility space or open space as it is mandatory as per the Regulations of 2020. The petitioners immediately approached the Competent Authoritis i.e. respondent No.2 on 23/12/2025 and respondent No.3 on 22/12/2025 pointing out the aforesaid irregularity that the sanctioned map of the said layout is without any open space and that the same is contrary to the prevalent laws. The aforesaid

2 115-WP-4580-26.odt representation dated 23/12/2025 is at record page 86, AnnexureE. 3.

Shri Raghav Bhandakkar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even after passage of almost six months now, the Competent Authorities have not decided the aforesaid representations and hence the petitioners have approached this Court with an alternate prayer to direct the concerned respondents to decide the representations dated 22/12/2025 and 23/12/2025 within a stipulated period.

4.

In view of the above, we dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the representation dated 23/12/2025 and respondent No.3 to decide the representation dated 22/12/2025 submitted by the petitioners within a stipulated period of eight weeks from the date of production of the order of this Court.

5.

The representations shall be decided on their own merits and in accordance with law after hearing necessary parties for such decision.

6.

The decision taken shall be communicated to the petitioners within a period of two weeks from the date of such decision.

7.

Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. (Raj D. Wakode, J.) (Anil S. Kilor, J.) Asmita Signed by: Smt. Asmita A. Bhandakkar Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 12/06/2026 10:48:26