1 02-wp 3545.2025.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3545 OF 2025 ( PRASHANT S/O MORESHWAR AKARE VS NAGPUR IMPROVEMENT TRUST, NAGPUR, THR. CHAIRMAN AND OTHERS ) Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or the directions, Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders. Mr. Raju Kadu, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.P. Mahalle, Advocate for respondent No.1. CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR AND RAJNISH R. VYAS, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 31, 2026 1) By way of the present writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 23/11/2023 issued by respondent No.1 – Chairman, Nagpur Improvement Trust (NIT), Nagpur, whereby the applications preferred by the petitioner on 21/03/2014 and 21/12/2022 seeking regularization of Plot No.45 under the Maharashtra Gunthewari Developments (Regularisation, Upgradation and Control) Act, 2001, came to be rejected. 2) It is the case of the petitioner that there is a registered sale deed in his favour in respect of the plot in question, i.e. Plot No.45. Despite this, while rejecting the application for regularization of the said plot under the Gunthewari Act, respondent No.1 has cited a reason which is not tenable in law, more particularly, in view of the provisions of Section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908. 3) It is submitted that the document relied upon by respondent No.1 is an unregistered agreement to sell. It is KOLHE 2026:BHC-NAG:11471-DB 2 02-wp 3545.2025.odt pointed out that such a document, i.e. an agreement to sell, does not create any title in favour of any person. Ignoring the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner, respondent No.1 has held that there is a dispute regarding ownership. He, therefore, submits that the impugned order is illegal and unsustainable in law. 4) On the other hand, Mr. Mahalle, learned counsel for respondent NIT, submits that among the various documents required for consideration of an application for regularization under the Gunthewari Act, one is a document showing lawful possession. Section 4(2)(a) provides that the application shall be accompanied, inter alia, by documentary proof of ownership or lawful possession of the plot. He submits that, as per the said provision, since respondent No.3 also filed an application along with a possession letter, respondent No.1 has relied upon the same while reaching a conclusion that there is a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.3 regarding possession. 5) Having considered the rival submissions, and perused the record, it is evident that the reason disclosed in the impugned order for rejecting the petitioner's request for regularization of Plot No.45 is the dispute regarding ownership. It is also apparent that while observing so, the respondent No.1 has relied upon an unregistered agreement to sell produced by the respondent No.3 in relation to the same plot. Whereas, admittedly, the petitioner has produced a registered sale deed, which specifically records that possession of the plot was handed over to the petitioner. 6) Thus, it is evident that respondent No.1 has not gone into the dispute regarding possession on the basis of the possession letter submitted by respondent No.3; rather, he has KOLHE 3 02-wp 3545.2025.odt referred to the documents produced by respondent No.3 to arrive at the conclusion that there is a dispute regarding ownership. 7) As per Section 49 of the Registration Act, the document which is compulsorily required to be regsitered, if not registered, the same cannot be used as evidence. Thus, we are of the opinion that the respondent No.1 has wrongly placed reliance upon agreement to sell, which does not create or alienate the title. 8) In the circumstances, as there is no mention of any dispute regarding possession and there is no consideration of the statement of handing over possession in the registered sale deed of the petitioner, we are of the opinion that the impugned order needs to be quashed and set aside and the matter is required to be remanded back to the respondent No.1 for reconsideration. 9) Accordingly, the impugned order dated 23/11/2023, rejecting the applications preferred by the petitioner on 21/03/2014 and 21/12/2022 for regularization of Plot No.45, is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to respondent No.1 for fresh consideration. 10) The respondent No.1 shall take a decision afresh on the application of the petitioner after hearing the concerned parties within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 11) Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in the above referred terms. ( RAJNISH R. VYAS, J. ) ( ANIL S. KILOR, J. ) KOLHE Signed by: Mr. Ravikant Kolhe Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 01/09/2026 18:19:16