CHANDRASHEKHAR PANDURANG GADGIL v. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PUNE AND ORS
WP/12492/2026 · 2026-10-07
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 15586 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 15586 (BOM) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
11_WP_12492_26.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12492 OF 2026 Chandrashekhar Pandurang Gadgil … Petitioner vs. Municipal Corporation of City of Pune and others … Respondents Mr. Sagar A. Joshi for petitioner. Mr. Abhijit P. Kulkarni a/w. Mr. Abhishek Roy and Mr. Shreyas R. Zarkar for respondent No.1 – PMC. Ms. G. R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for respondent Nos.2 and 3 – State authorities.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE & SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ DATE :
07th OCTOBER, 2026 P.C. : . The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction to complete the process of acquisition of the subject land. The said prayer is based on documents filed along with the writ petition, which indicate that the respondent No.1 – Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) had initiated a proposal for acquisition of the subject land, by approaching respondents – State authorities. Respondent No.3 – Special Land Acquisition Officer had even communicated to the Municipal Corporation to deposit the amount. It appears that thereafter, the respondent No.1 – PMC simply sent a communication dated 08.07.2025, offering either FSI or TDR as compensation to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is not interested in compensation in the form of FSI or TDR and he insists on monetary compensation. 1/2 PRIYA KAMBLI Digitally signed by PRIYA KAMBLI Date: 2026.10.07 15:00:49 +0530
11_WP_12492_26.doc
3. Respondent No.1 – PMC is represented by Mr. Kulkarni,
learned counsel and respondent Nos.2 and 3 – State authorities are represented by Ms. Raghuwanshi, learned AGP.
4. Since all the three respondents are represented by counsel before this Court, the present writ petition can be disposed of by issuing appropriate directions to the respondents.
5. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of by directing that in the event the respondent No.1 – PMC requires the subject land for the purpose for which it is reserved i.e. DP road, it shall proceed for acquisition of the same either by way of negotiations or compulsory acquisition in accordance with law and upon determination and payment of monetary compensation, the said respondent can proceed to take possession of the subject land.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) 2/2 Priya Kambli