Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2019 DAILYLAW 3462 (BOM)

SEEMADEVI R. SHAMBHUWANI THR. P.O.A. HOLDER NARESH D. SHAMBHUWANI AND OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH SECRETARY, URBAN LAND DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI AND OTHERS

WP/3128/2019 · 2026-08-17

body2019

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

45-WP-3128-2019 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 3128 OF 2019 (Seemadevi w/o Rochiram Shambhuwani & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.) WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 5341 OF 2018 (Hiranand s/o Vasantmal Karamchandani & Ors. Vs. The Municipal Corporation of City of Nagpur & Ors.) __________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's Orders. WP No. 3128/2019 Mr. M.R. Joharapurkar, Counsel for the petitioners. Mr. B.M. Lonare, A.G.P. for respondent no.1/State. Mr. S.M. Ukey, Counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3. WP No. 5341/2018 None for the petitioners. Mr. Rohan Chhabra, Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Mr. M.R. Joharapurkar, Counsel for respondent nos. 4 to 8. ..... CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ. AUGUST 17, 2026 WRIT PETITION NO. 3128/2019 Heard. 2] We are informed that the issue involved is pending in an appeal filed under Section 47 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The learned A.G.P. submits that hearing in the appeal is fixed on 19/8/2026. 3] In that view of the matter, the Counsel for the petitioners, on instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the petition, and to pursue the cause before the Appellate Authority, and to take further action once decision is taken. 2026:BHC-NAG:10617-DB 45-WP-3128-2019 2 4] Permission is granted. The petition is disposed of as withdrawn. 5] The interim relief granted vide order dated 18/4/2019 shall continue till the appeal is decided by respondent no.1. WRIT PETITION NO. 5341/2018 6] None appears for the petitioners. 7] The Counsels appearing for the respondents jointly submit that the petition is rendered infructuous. 8] That appears to be the reason why none is appearing for the petitioners. 9] The petition is, accordingly, dismissed as not prosecuted. 10] Copy of order shall be served upon the petitioners for taking appropriate steps, if so adviced. (JUDGE) (JUDGE) Sumit Signed by: Mr. Sumit Agrawal Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 17/08/2026 19:19:56