Nagpur: The Pitru Chhaya Co-operative Housing Society had developed a layout in which plots were allotted to designated members. After purchasing these plots, the members approached the Trust (Pranyas) seeking regularization under the Maharashtra Gunthewari Development Act, 2001. However, the matter remained pending without any decision.
In this context, Suresh Mahalle and others filed a petition in the High Court, seeking a modification of the Court’s earlier order dated April 16, 2025. During the hearing, the petitioners failed to satisfactorily respond to the Court’s queries, leading the Court to reject the plea for amendment and dismiss the petition outright.
Gold Rate
15 May 2025
The High Court had earlier, on April 16, 2025, referred to an interim order dated April 19, 2014, in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 40/2013, which clearly stated that no encroachments on land reserved for playgrounds in the development plan shall be regularized. Similarly, another interim order in Writ Petition No. 237/2023 also prohibits NIT (Nagpur Improvement Trust) from regularizing Gunthewari developments on such reserved land.
Key Court Observation:
During the hearing, the Court asked the petitioners’ counsel to point out any specific statement in the petition indicating that their application for regularization does not affect the Development Plan (DP) reservations. The counsel was unable to identify any such statement, leading the Court to conclude that there was no valid reason to amend its April 16, 2025 order.
The counsel representing the Trust submitted that a letter had already been sent to the City Survey Officer and the Society on February 14, 2022, seeking opinions regarding objections raised by adjoining landowners and layout holders.
Further Court Directions:
After hearing arguments from both sides, the High Court instructed the City Survey Officer to respond clearly to the February 14, 2022 letter. It also directed the Co-operative Societies Department and the District Sub-Registrar to verify records and ensure that the Society is not inactive. The Court further ordered that proper notices be sent to the office bearers of the Society, requiring their presence for the next hearing.
In the previous hearing, none of the Society’s representatives appeared, leading the Court to adjourn the matter. However, the Court issued a stern warning that non-appearance at the next hearing would result in bailable warrants being issued against the Society’s office bearers.
