MOHAMMED YUSUF ABDUL KARIM ALIAS YUSUF KARIMversusPUNE METROPOLITIAN REGISION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROU. METROPOLITIAN COMMISSIONER AND ORS

bdp
              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                              WRIT PETITION NO.10811 OF 2026
      Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Karim @
      Yusuf Karim                                                   .. Petitioner
                     Vs.
      Pune Metropolitan Region Development
      Authority and Ors.                                            .. Respondents


      Mr. Hemant Ingle with Mr. Pratik Ingle, Mr. Mrunal Ingle, Mr. Imtiyaz
      S. and Mr. Umar Kazi, i/by Mr. Prashant S. Goyal, Advocates for the
      Petitioner.
      Mr. Rohit Sakhadeo, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2-PMRDA.
      Mrs. Pooja Patil, AGP for the Respondent-State of Maharashtra.


                                CORAM :        RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, ACJ. &
                                               GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.
                                DATE     :     20th August, 2026.

      P.C. :


      1.              The Petitioner challenges the demolition order dated 29th

      July, 2026 passed by Respondent No.2 in relation to structures standing

      on Gat Nos. 221, 222 and 223, at Mouje Vaksai, Taluka Maval, District

      Pune.



      2.              Mr. Hemant Ingle, learned counsel appearing for the

      Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner acquired the aforesaid lands under

      registered conveyances executed between 1980 and 1993. The impugned
                                             1/5
      916-WP-10811-2026.odt
order concerns the structures subsequently constructed on the said lands.

The Petitioner filed an Application dated 21st November 1998 to

Respondent No.3, Gram Panchayat, which was considered in the

meeting held on 23rd November, 1998 and Resolution No.47/2 was

passed. Pursuant thereto, Respondent No.3 granted construction

permission dated 18th February, 1999. Since then, the structures have

been continuously assessed by Respondent No.3 and property taxes have

been recovered from the Petitioner from 1998-1999 onwards. There are

documents including Zone Certificate dated 29th December 2016 and

correspondence relating to the electricity meter connection. The action

against the Petitioner has been initiated pursuant to a motivated

complaint made by Respondent No.5. The Petitioner had submitted a

detailed representation placing the aforesaid facts and documents on

record. However, the same has not been duly considered by Respondent

Nos.1 and 2 before passing the impugned order dated 29th July, 2026.



3.              On the other hand, Mr. Rohit Sakhadeo, learned counsel

appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, vehemently submits that the

impugned order is a reasoned order and has been passed after

considering all relevant aspects in the matter. He, therefore, submits that

no interference is warranted in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this

Court.
                                   2/5
916-WP-10811-2026.odt
4.              We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record. The Petitioner has placed on record the construction

permission dated 18th February, 1999 issued by Respondent No.3. The

validity of the said permission has not been dealt with in the impugned

order. In these circumstances, a demolition order ought not to have been

passed without first considering the legal effect of the permission

granted by Respondent No.3 and the other documents relied upon by the

Petitioner.




5.              Mr.     Sakhadeo   submits   that   Respondent   No.1   has

subsequently been appointed as the Planning Authority and that the

requisite permission of the Planning Authority would be necessary. We

do not express any opinion on the merits of this contention. In our view,

the controversy can be resolved in the following terms:

        (i)     Since the Petitioner relies upon the permissions granted by

                Respondent No.3, the Petitioner is at liberty to file a

                regularization application or such application under the

                MRTP Act as may be advised, within a period of two weeks

                from today. The Application shall be complete in all

                respects and shall be accompanied by all requisite

                documents.


                                      3/5
916-WP-10811-2026.odt
        (ii)    Respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall consider the said Application

                on its own merits, after granting an opportunity of hearing

                to the Petitioner and thereafter pass a reasoned order within

                a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the

                Application.

        (iii)   The Petitioner shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and

                shall extend full cooperation for the expeditious disposal of

                the Application.




6.              Until the aforesaid Application is decided and a copy of the

order is served upon the Petitioner, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall not

take any coercive action against the Petitioner and shall not demolish the

structures in question.




7.              We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the

legality of the structures or as conferring any right of regularization upon

the Petitioner. The competent authority shall decide the Petitioner’s

Application strictly in accordance with the applicable law.




8.              If, upon such consideration, Respondent No.2 finds that any

part of the structure is unauthorized or ought to be demolished,
                                      4/5
916-WP-10811-2026.odt
                      Respondent No.2 shall be at liberty to take appropriate action after

                      following the due procedure in law.




                      9.              The Writ Petition is disposed off in the above terms. There

                      shall be no order as to costs.




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


BHARAT
DASHARATH
PANDIT

Digitally signed by
BHARAT
DASHARATH
PANDIT
Date: 2026.08.21
12:21:11 +0530




                                                           5/5
                      916-WP-10811-2026.odt