Partition of estate land requires internal road widths compliant with mandatory Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations.

The suit was instituted on February 8, 1950, by the heirs of Mia Mohamed Haji Janmohamed Chotani for a declaration, partition, and rendition of accounts regarding the deceased’s estate.

A preliminary decree was passed on March 28, 1950, declaring shares and referring the matter to the Commissioner for Taking Accounts.

One heir, Osman Chotani, became insolvent, leading to the impleadment of the Official Assignee.

A significant property, Survey No. 208 in Yeravada, Pune, was subject to a 1955 compromise decree between the Court Receiver and the Madiwale family, who were granted a 1/4th share in full settlement of claims.

Over decades, various third parties (Defendants 2, 16, and 17) acquired interests via development agreements or sales from the original heirs and the Madiwale family.

A portion of the land (Final Plot 80) was excluded from this judgment due to pending appeals.

The Commissioner submitted a report in 2025 proposing a final partition of Final Plot No. 79 (Part).

Whether the proposed partition plan for Final Plot No. 79 (Part), including the provision of a 12-metre internal road, is legally valid and technically necessary.

Whether the competing claims of the various impleaded developers and purchasers (Defendants 2, 16, and 17) can be resolved within the final decree of this partition suit.

Order XL Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the powers of a Receiver to manage and partition property.

The Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations for Maharashtra State (UDCPR), specifically Regulations 3.3.2(C) and 3.3.3, which mandate minimum road widths for land sub-divisions and layouts.

Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to protect the parties' right to pursue fresh litigation in the appropriate forum for competing contractual claims.

The Court evaluated the Commissioner’s partition report and the objection raised by Defendant No. 2 regarding the 12-metre internal road.

Relying on an expert Architect’s opinion, the Court found that the UDCPR mandates a 12-metre road for such sub-divisions and that FSI benefits would prevent any actual loss of development potential.

Regarding the competing claims between the intervenors (Defendants 16 and 17) over specific sub-plots, the Court determined that these summary proceedings were not the venue for adjudicating complex contractual disputes based on Memoranda of Understanding.

Instead, the Court maintained the status quo and directed the parties to seek adjudication in competent civil courts, while appointing the Registrar of the District Court as a Receiver for the most contentious sub-plot (No. 17) to preserve the property pending local suit results.

It ordered the District Superintendent of Land Records (DSLR) to carry out physical demarcation and update revenue records.

Sub-Plot 19 was ordered to be conveyed to Defendant No. 17.

For Sub-Plot 17, the Registrar of the Pune District Court was appointed Receiver pending Civil Suit No. 268 of 2019.

A status quo was ordered until June 15, 2026, for Sub-Plots 18 and 20–24 to allow Defendants 16 and 17 to initiate appropriate legal proceedings.

Suit No. 208 of 1950 was finally disposed of, and the Court Receiver and Official Assignee were discharged upon compliance with these directions.