Bombay High Court
Nand Kumar S/O Khattumal Harchandani vs Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Thr. ... on 11 February, 2026
Author: Anil Laxman Pansare
Bench: Anil Laxman Pansare
Order wp 998.2026.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 998 OF 2026
[Nand Kumar S/o Khattumal Harchandani vs. Nagpur Municipal Corporation through
Additional Commissioner, Mangalwari Zone No. 10, Nagpur]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda Court's or Judge's orders
of Coram, Appearances, Court's orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Aniket S. Dabadghao, Advocate for petitioner with Mr. Nand
Kumar Khattumal Harchandani, petitioner-in-person
CORAM : ANIL L. PANSARE AND
NIVEDITA P. MEHTA, JJ.
DATE : 11-02-2026.
1. Not on board. Taken on board.
2. On 10-2-2026, following order was passed.
"Challenge is to order dated 20.01.2026, passed by respondent No.1, whereby the petitioner was called upon to remove the unauthorised structures mentioned therein.
2. The parties were heard at length and when we were not inclined to grant any relief, the petitioner-in-person made a statement that he himself will remove/demolish the unauthorised construction notified to him vide notice dated 26.08.2004 read with order dated 20.01.2026, which includes following construction :
"1. Parking area admeasuring 1298.40 Sq. Mtr.
2. Construction beyond the plot admeasuring 1494.06 Sq. Mtr.
3. 7th Floor admeasuring 1175.42 Sq. Mtr.
4. Construction of 3.00 Meter above the permissible height."
Order wp 998.2026.odt 2
3. The statement so made was accepted. We, however, directed the petitioner to submit in writing a detailed time schedule of demolition of unauthorised structure, to which he said that he will submit it by 04:30 p.m.
4. Later on, at about 04:30 p.m., one Ms Abhiruchi Agrawal has filed a pursis on behalf of the petitioner mentioning therein that at about 03:30 p.m., the petitioner suffered breathlessness and was rushed to the hospital. He is admitted at Arneja Heart Institute, Dhantoli. Accordingly, time of 3-4 days is sought to enable him to regain his health.
5. The pursis is taken on record.
6. Thus, it appears that the petitioner is not in a position to submit the schedule of demolition today. Nonetheless, the fact remains that he made a statement before us that he himself will demolish unauthorised structure within two months from today.
7. The statement is accepted as an undertaking given to the Court.
8. The petitioner shall, accordingly, commence demolition of unauthorised structure noted above on 16.02.2026 and complete the same by 10.04.2026. If petitioner fails to commence demolition on 16.02.2026, respondent No.1 shall, on 17.02.2026, commence the demolition and complete the same, as expeditiously as possible.
9. The petitioner and respondent No.1 shall submit progress report of demolition on 23.02.2026.
10. Stand over to 23.02.2026."
3. Today, the petitioner-in-person mentioned the matter at 10.30 a.m. when we assumed the dias. He tendered across bar the affidavit saying that it is Order wp 998.2026.odt 3 being filed in terms of assurance given yesterday. We had taken a look at affidavit, where we found that the petitioner is seeking 1½ months to commence the work of demolition.
4. We expressed our disinclination to grant time. However, we instructed him to get the matter on board by submitting circulation slip in accordance with the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960, so that other side would be notified of listing the petition. We then returned back the affidavit. His counsel Mr. Dabadghao was present in the Court. He submitted that he will assist him in getting the matter circulated.
5. The petitioner, however, did not turn up. We find such conduct strategic and dubious. Accordingly, we thought it necessary to record what transpired today and hence took the matter on board in the evening to note aforesaid facts.
(JUDGE) (JUDGE.)
Later on,
6. Sheristedar of the Court informed us that the petitioner in-person has filed affidavit with the Registry through presentation slip. This action, however, is not in accordance with what we had suggested in the morning. We had instructed petitioner to get the matter circulated and listed on board so that Order wp 998.2026.odt 4 other side will get an opportunity to deal with the affidavit so filed by the petitioner.
7. Be that as it may, the affidavit has been filed which reads as under :-
"I, Nandkumar Khattumal Harchandani, aged about 73 years, Occ. Business, R/o Byramji Town, Chindwara Road, Nagpur, the petitioner herein, states as under :
1. That during the course of today's hearing, this Hon'ble court however, directed me to place on record in writing the timeline in which I would comply with the impugned order dated 20.01.2026.
2. In pursuance thereof, I submit that I may kindly be granted time of at least 3 months to take steps towards the same. The basement contains several shop blocks, some of which have been sold vide registered sale deeds. I would therefore require a period of at least 1-1.5 months to make arrangements for removal of the occupants of the shop blocks. It is only after eviction of the occupants of the shop blocks in the basement that I would be able to remove the construction thereof in the next 1-1.5 months.
3. I also require at least one month for removal of the remaining alleged parts as stated in the impugned order. I therefore pray for at least 3 months' time to comply with the impugned order.
In the meantime, I would humbly pray that the NMC may also be directed to at least consider my revised plans for regularization and compound the same, if they are permissible under law. Hence verified, signed and affirm on this 10 day of February, 2026 at Nagpur."
th
Order wp 998.2026.odt
5
8. As could be seen, the petitioner is seeking three months time to take necessary steps. He further submits that he would require at least 1-1.5 months to make arrangements for removal of the occupants of the shop blocks and thereafter to remove the construction. He has also made a request to direct the respondent - Corporation to consider his revised plans for regularization and compound the same, if permissible under law.
9. We may note here that the occupants of the shops have been already notified to vacate the premises. The respondent - Corporation is all set to then remove/ demolish the unauthorised construction.
10. The petitioner's request for regularization or for compounding unauthorised construction has been already refused. The issue of demolition is pending for last more than two decades.
11. In the circumstances, we are not inclined to grant further time and/or to modify order passed by us yesterday. Accordingly, we direct the parties to act in terms of order dated 10-2-2026.
12. List on 23-2-2026 for submitting progress report. Copy of order shall be served upon respondents.
(JUDGE) (JUDGE.)
wasnik
Signed by: Mr. A. Y. Wasnik
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 11/02/2026 20:27:08