Bombay High Court
SHANKAR NATHURAM SATKAR AND ANRversusCHAKAN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL THR ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND ANR
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The municipal authority must refrain from any coercive action and decide the Section 44 regularisation application before acting on the demolition notice.
Summary
The petitioners, owners of plots within Chakan Municipal Council limits, applied for construction permission but were told the development plan was not approved. They proceeded with construction and the council issued notices under Sections 52, 53 and 54 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 alleging unauthorised work and threatened demolition. The petitioners filed a regularisation application under Section 44 on 11 August 2026, but the council, despite the pending application, continued to threaten coercive action. The High Court held that under Section 53(3) the authority must consider the Section 44 application before any demolition and cannot act on the notice while the application is pending. Referring to earlier decisions (Ganesh Hanumant Gaikwad, Ekataa Commercial Center, Foresight Builders), the Court directed the council to decide the application within four weeks and barred any further action until then, disposing of the petition with no costs order.
Issues considered
- Whether a municipal authority may proceed with demolition under Sections 52, 53 and 54 of the MRTP Act when a regularisation application under Section 44 is pending.
- Whether the notice issued by the authority can be quashed pending consideration of the regularisation application.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 — s. 44, 52, 53, 54, 55
Subjects
- regularisation
- demolition
- MRTP Act
- show cause notice
- municipal authority
- building regulations
- writ petition
Judgment
1 911-wp-10661-
2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10661 OF 2026
Shankar Nathuram Satkar and Another ...Petitioners
Vs.
Chakan Municipal Council through its
Chief Executive Officer and Another ...Respondents
-----------------
Mr. Krantisinh Gadade, for the Petitioners.
Mr. P. P. Kakade, Addl. G.P. a/w. Mr. P. G. Sawant, AGP, for the Respondent -
State.
-----------------
Digitally
signed by
MAMTA
MAMTA AMAR
AMAR KALE
KALE Date:
2026.08.24
19:10:51
CORAM : R. I. CHAGLA AND
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
+0530
DATED : 19th AUGUST, 2026
P.C.:-
1. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has tendered
an Affidavit of Service dated 18 th August 2026 as had been directed by this
Court and which shows that the Respondents have been served. There is
acknowledgment of Respondent No.1 on the Advocate’s Notices dated 17 th
August 2026 and 18th August 2026 which is annexed to the Affidavit of
Service. Inspite of service, none appears for Respondent No.1 - Chakan
Municipal Council. The learned AGP appears for Respondent No.2 – State.
2. By this Petition, the Petitioners are seeking quashing and
setting aside of the Notice dated 9th April 2026 issued by Respondent No.1
Mamta Kale 1/7
2 911-wp-10661-
2026.doc
under Sections 52 and 53 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning
Act, 1966 (“MRTP Act”). Further, prayer is sought directing Respondent
No.1, to consider and decide the Petitioners’ Regularisation Application
dated 11th August 2026.
3. The Petitioners are the owners of land described in paragraph
No.3 of the Writ Petition, being Plot Nos.23, 24 and 25, on CTS No.2407,
situated within the municipal limits of Respondent No.1.
4. The Petitioners had approached Respondent No.1 for obtaining
permission for construction on the said land. Respondent No.1 had
informed the Petitioners that the Development Plan of Chakan had not been
sanctioned / approved and that permission could not be granted at that
stage.
5. The Petitioners had commenced construction on the said land
and, in respect of such construction, Respondent No.1 issued the impugned
Notice dated 9th April 2026 under Sections 52, 53 and 54 of the MRTP Act,
alleging that the construction was unauthorised.
6. Respondent No.1 issued further Notice dated 10 th August 2026
calling upon the Petitioners to remain present in connection with the
alleged unauthorised construction on the said land.
7. The Petitioners submitted Regularisation Application dated 11 th
August 2026 before Respondent No.1, which had annexed relevant
documents and plans. The Application is pending before Respondent No.1.
Mamta Kale 2/7
3 911-wp-10661-
2026.doc
8. It is the grievance of the Petitioners that, despite the
Application for regularisation pending before Respondent No.1, they were
orally directed to demolish the alleged unauthorised structure on the said
land.
9. The Petitioners, being aggrieved by the impugned Notice,
threatening coercive action on the part of Respondent No.1, have
approached this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction.
10. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners has
submitted that the Regularisation Application filed by the Petitioners, under
Section 44 of the MRTP Act, 1966, is required to be considered by
Respondent No.1 prior to any coercive steps being taken in respect of the
structure which has been constructed on the said land. He has referred to
the provisions of Section 44 and 53 of the MRTP Act, 1966. Section 53(3)
of the MRTP Act, 1966 provides that any person aggrieved by the Notice
issued in respect of demolition of development of land, may, within the
period specified in the notice and in the manner prescribed, apply for
permission under Section 44 for retention on the land of any building or
works or for the continuance of any use of the land, to which the notice
relates, and pending the final determination or withdrawal of the
application, the mere notice itself shall not affect the retention of buildings
or works or the continuance of such use.
Mamta Kale 3/7
4 911-wp-10661-
2026.doc
11. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners further relied upon the
decision of this Court in Ganesh Hanumant Gaikwad and Another Vs. State
of Maharashtra through its Principal Secretary Urban Development
Department and Others in Writ Petition No.17458 of 2025 wherein by an
Order dated 22nd December 2025, this Court has, in a similar factual
situation where an Application had been made by the Petitioner under
Section 44 of the MRTP Act, 1966, had directed the Planning Authority to
consider and decide the Application strictly in accordance with the law and
in terms of the applicable provisions of the Building Rules and Regulations,
and not to take any coercive steps in respect of the structure which has
been constructed on the said land.
12. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has also relied upon the
decision of this Court in Ekataa Commercial Center Pvt. Ltd. and Another
Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) and Another in Writ
Petition (L) No.22055 of 2023 wherein by an Order dated 28th August 2023,
this Court had taken a similar view as in the above decision where the
online Application of the Petitioner, under Section 44 of the MRTP Act, was
pending, and had not been decided and disposed of, and the Executive
Engineer, Building Proposal, was requested to decide the Application for
regularisation at the earliest and, in any event, within six weeks from the
date of Order.
Mamta Kale 4/7
5 911-wp-10661-
2026.doc
13. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners has accordingly sought
for a similar Order to be passed in the present case.
14. We have considered the submissions and noted that
Respondent No.1 has failed to appear despite service, which is evident from
the Affidavit of Service which has been tendered and taken on record.
15. In the present Petition, the Petitioners had filed an Application
under Section 44 of the MRTP Act, 1966, on 11 th August 2026. In spite of
the said Application being filed, Respondent No.1, as stated by the
Petitioners, threatened coercive action viz., demolition of structure on the
said land.
16. Respondent No.1 is enjoined by the provisions of the MRTP Act
viz., Section 53(3), read with Section 44, to consider the Application made
under Section 44 prior to taking any coercive action, which includes
demolition of structure which they claimed is unauthorised on the said
land. It has been held by this Court in Ganesh Hanumant Gaikwad (Supra)
by placing reliance upon an earlier decision of this Court in Foresight
Builders and Another Vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
and Others in Writ Petition (L) No.3443 of 2014 decided on 13 th January
2015 that the concerned Authority is required to decide an Application
under Section 44 of the MRTP Act, 1966 strictly in accordance with the law
and in terms of the applicable provisions of the Building Rules and
Regulations. In Foresight Builders (Supra), this Court has held in
Mamta Kale 5/7
6 911-wp-10661-
2026.doc
paragraph No.2 as under:
“It is well settled position in law that if a show cause notice
is issued under Section 53 and Section 55 of the MRTP Act,
it is open for the person to make an application for
regularisation under Section 44 of the said Act. If such an
application is filed, the Competent Authority will have to
consider the application on merits and in accordance with
law. Needless to state that during this period, action under
Section 53(1) cannot be taken by the Corporation.”
17. From the above decision, it is clear that where Show Cause
Notice has been issued under Sections 53 and 55 of the Act, it is open for
the person to make an Application for regularisation under Section 44 of
the MRTP Act, and when such Application is filed, the Competent Authority
will have to consider the Application on merits and in accordance with the
law. Further, an action under Section 53(1) of the MRTP Act cannot be
taken by the Competent Authority during this period.
18. A similar view has also been taken by this Court in Ekataa
Commercial Center Pvt. Ltd. (Supra).
19. Upon perusal of the relevant provisions of the MRTP Act, 1966,
as well as the aforesaid decisions passed by this Court, we are of the view
that the Petitioners’ Application, under Section 44 of the MRTP Act, 1966, is
required to be heard and disposed of by Respondent No.1, on merits and in
accordance with the terms of the applicable provisions of the Building Rules
Mamta Kale 6/7
7 911-wp-10661-
2026.doc
and Regulations as well as strictly in accordance with the law.
20. Till then, no coercive action shall be taken by Respondent No.1
in respect of the structure built by the Petitioners on the said land.
21. We accordingly passed the following Order.
ORDER
1. Respondent No.1 is directed to decide the Application
dated 11th August 2026 of the Petitioners under Section 44 of the
MRTP Act, 1966, at the earliest, and, in any event, within a period
of four weeks from uploading of this Order.
2. Till the aforesaid Application of the Petitioners is
disposed of, no further action shall be taken pursuant to the
impugned Notice dated 9th April 2026 issued by Respondent No.1
under Sections 52, 53 and 54 of the MRTP Act, 1966.
3. If the aforesaid Application is rejected for any reason, no
action will be taken against the structure on Plot Nos.23, 24 and
25 on CTS No.2407, for a further period of two weeks from the
said decision.
4. The Petition is disposed of in the above terms. However,
there shall be no order as to costs.
[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [R.I. CHAGLA, J.]
Mamta Kale 7/7
Checking your session…