Nagpur: On July 7, 2023, the Nagpur Improvement Trust (NIT) issued a notice to the HB Town Residents Association for constructing a compound wall on an 18-meter-wide road, as per the development plan. The notice stated that the wall amounted to encroachment and ordered its removal.
In response, the HB Town families filed a civil suit in the District Court. While the civil suit was pending, they also filed a Miscellaneous Civil Appeal (MCA No. 137/2024) before District Judge-6. On May 3, 2025, the court dismissed the appeal. Challenging this decision, the HB Town families approached the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court, which has now stayed the order passed by the District Judge.
Gold Rate
15 May 2025
NIT’s notice claimed that HB Town had encroached on land meant for a public road by constructing the compound wall. The Association, however, argued that the wall had been in place for over 20 years and was part of the original boundary of their approved layout. They emphasized that the structure was not illegal and had been erected to secure the premises.
The High Court, after hearing both sides, noted that the petitioners had filed Civil Suit No. 251/2024 (HB Town Families vs Nagpur Improvement Trust), wherein the plea for interim injunction was rejected. The petitioners then appealed, but that too was dismissed. In their High Court petition, the petitioners requested a stay on the May 3, 2025 order, citing that substantial time would be needed to examine the documents and oral evidence in the civil suit.
The petitioners comprise families residing in HB Town Scheme, located at Old Pardi Naka, Bhandara Road, Nagpur. They own bungalows and flats in the area and function as an unregistered group. According to them, the original layout plan of their land was approved by NIT and later revised and sanctioned again on September 30, 2005.
In their response to NIT’s notice dated July 10, 2023, the HB Town families clarified that the compound wall was a legitimate part of the boundary of their property and could not be considered unauthorized. They stressed that the wall was essential for the safety and demarcation of the scheme’s premises and should not be treated as encroachment.
