SHANTARAM SADABA WAGHMAREversusTHE PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THRU ENGINEER

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        WRIT PETITION NO. 10508 OF 2026

Shantaram Sadaba Waghmare                             …. Petitioner.

            Vs.

The Pune Municipal Corporation
Through the Executive Engineer                        …. Respondent.


Mr. Sanket Bora (through VC) i/b Mr. Gaurav D. Kakade, Advocates for
the Petitioner.

                          CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, ACJ. &
                                  GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

                          DATE     : 18th August, 2026.

P.C. :


1.                The Petitioner claims to be a lawful lessee and occupier of

Building No.48-C situated at Madhavbag Sahakari Gruhrachana Sanstha

Maryadit, Kothrud, Pune, under registered Lease Deeds dated 4 th August,

1986 and 14th June 2003. The lease is a perpetual lease of 999 years and

the Petitioner is in possession of this property since 1986.



2.                The present Petition challenges the legality of the notice

dated 18th June, 2026, received by the Petitioner on 15 th July, 2026,


                                       1/5
909 WP-10508-2026.odt                                                      bdp
issued under Section 53(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town

Planning Act, 1966 (“MRTP Act”), and the consequential notices issued

pursuant thereto. By the impugned notice, the Petitioner has been called

upon to demolish the compound wall and other structures and to remove

the alleged encroachment from the subject land.



3.               The Petitioner submitted representations to the Executive

Engineer on 17th July, 2026 and 28th July, 2026, objecting to the

impugned notice. The Petitioner also sought copies of the inspection

report, demarcation report and other documents relied upon by the

Respondent-Corporation and requested that no demolition or coercive

action be taken against the compound wall or the property until the

dispute was considered. However apprehending demolition, the

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:


               “A. Issue a writ of Certiorari or any other
               appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and
               setting aside the impugned notice dated 18.06.2026
               and the consequential communications issued by
               the Respondent.

               B.      Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other
               appropriate writ, order or direction directing the
               Respondent to decide the Petitioner’s application
               dated 03.08.2026 submitted under the provisions of
               the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,
               1966, in accordance with law after granting an
               opportunity of hearing.


                                      2/5
909 WP-10508-2026.odt                                                   bdp
               C. Declare that no coercive action shall be taken
               against the Petitioner’s property pursuant to the
               impugned notices until the Petitioner’s application
               dated 03.08.2026 is decided by the competent
               authority.

               D.      Direct the Respondent to furnish to the
               Petitioner copies of the inspection report,
               measurement report, survey records, demarcation
               report, panchnama and all other documents relied
               upon in issuing the impugned notices.”


4.               Mr. Bora, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner,

submits that the Petitioner has been in possession and enjoyment of the

property, including the compound wall, entrance gate, garden and open

area, since 1986. He further submits that Regular Civil Suit No. 1455 of

2016 is pending before the competent Civil Court in relation to a dispute

concerning possession of the adjoining property. There are also other

civil proceedings concerning the common access between Madhavbag

Sahakari Gruhrachana Sanstha Maryadit and Greenfield Co-operative

Housing Society. He further submits that certain persons attempted to

trespass upon the Petitioner’s property on 2nd June, 2026, resulting in

registration of FIR No. 168 of 2026 at the instance of the Petitioner

against one Vinayak Sakharam Vashivle and other unknown persons. It is

submitted that the impugned notices have been issued in the backdrop of

these disputes and ought to be stayed by this Court.




                                     3/5
909 WP-10508-2026.odt                                                  bdp
5.               We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner at

length. In view of the admitted position that, disputes concerning

possession and boundary of the property are pending before the Civil

Court, we granted a pass-over to the learned counsel to obtain

instructions as to whether the Petitioner intended to pursue his remedies

before the Civil Court. The learned counsel was instructed to press the

present Petition on merits.



6.               We then specifically called upon the learned counsel to

explain why the Petition does not annex the sanctioned plans, the

building permission or relevant documents in respect of the construction

carried out in 1986. No explanation was forthcoming. Therefore, in the

absence of the statutory documents, permissions and plans demonstrating

that permission was granted in 1986 for the construction of the structures

mentioned in the impugned notice, we cannot accept the Petitioner's

contention that the construction is authorised or otherwise protected from

action under the MRTP Act merely on the basis of the Petitioner's long-

standing possession.



7.               It is clear from the civil suit that there are subsisting

disputes concerning possession and the boundaries of the adjoining

properties. Such disputed questions, particularly as to the identity and
                                      4/5
909 WP-10508-2026.odt                                                   bdp
                      extent of the property upon which the alleged encroachment is situated,

                      cannot be adjudicated in exercise of our extraordinary jurisdiction under

                      Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner's remedy lies

                      before the competent Civil Court.



                      8.               It is well settled law, as is held by the Hon’ble Supreme

                      Court in Roshina T. vs. Abdul Azeez K.T. and Others, (2019) 2 SCC

                      329, that disputes relating to boundaries and possession of immovable

                      properties cannot be adjudicated by a Writ Court. The pendency of the

                      Petitioner's application for regularisation also does not confer upon this

                      Court any basis to adjudicate disputed questions of boundary or to

                      presume that the existing construction is authorised. Hence, the Writ

                      Petition No. 10508 of 2026 is dismissed.



                      9.               Nevertheless, the Petitioner is at liberty to approach the

                      competent Civil Court for adjudication of his claims relating to

                      possession and boundary, in accordance with law. If such proceedings

                      are instituted, the Civil Court shall consider and decide the same on their

                      own merits, uninfluenced by the observations made in this order.
BHARAT
DASHARATH
PANDIT

Digitally signed by
BHARAT
DASHARATH
PANDIT
Date: 2026.08.19
15:40:56 +0530



                      [ GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. ]                    [ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ]

                                                            5/5
                      909 WP-10508-2026.odt                                                    bdp