JIJUS IS LORD CHURCH TRUST THROU. PAUL D SILWAYversusTHE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BUILDING PERMISSION AND UNAUTHORISED CONSTRUCTION CONTROL DEPT AND ORS

2026:BHC-AS:35505

                                                                          15 wp 11248 of 2026.doc

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                 WRIT PETITION NO.11248 OF 2026

            Jijus is Lord Church Trust                           ...   Petitioner
                   versus
            The Executive Engineer, Building Permission
            and Unauthorized Construction Control
            Dept. and Ors.                                       …     Respondent

            Mr. Kishor Ajetrao with Ms. Pooja Dalvi i/by Mr. Akash Dalvi, for Petitioner.
            Mr. Kedar B. Dighe, for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

                                CORAM:       N.J.JAMADAR, J.

                                DATE :       28 AUGUST 2026

            ORAL ORDER :

            1.      Heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

            2.      The challenge in this Petition is to a judgment and order dated 25

            August 2026 passed by the learned District Judge, whereby the appeal

            preferred by the Petitioner against an order dated 7 January 2026 passed by

            the learned Civil Judge, PCMC Court, Akurdi, Pune, thereby rejecting the

            application for temporary injunction filed by the Petitioner in RCS No.146 of

            2025, came to be dismissed.

            3.      The Petitioner had instituted the said suit seeking injunction to restrain

            the Respondents – Officers of the PCMC from acting upon the notice dated 9

            June 2025 issued by the Municipal Corporation under Section 53 of the

            Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. By the said notice, the



            SSP                                                                     1/5
                                                           15 wp 11248 of 2026.doc

Respondents called upon the Petitioner to remove the unauthorized

construction admeasuring 30 mtrs. X 15 mtrs. at Survey No.73/2. D. Rajwade

Nagar, Kalewadi, Pune.           It was, inter alia, contended that the said

development has been carried out without the permission of the Planning

Authority.

4.    The learned Civil Judge did not accede to the prayer of the Petitioner –

Plaintiff to stay the execution and operation of the said notice till the final

disposal of the suit. The Petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order

before the District Court. By an order dated 24 February 2026, the learned

District Judge had rejected the application for interim relief during the

pendency of the appeal. The Petitioner has approached this Court in WP

No.3360 of 2026. By an order dated 18 March 2026, the said Petition was

disposed with a direction to both the parties to maintain status quo till the

disposal of the appeal, the hearing of which was directed to be expedited. By

the impugned order, the learned District Judge has dismissed the Appeal

ascribing justifiable reasons.

5.    Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, at the time of hearing

of the said Appeal, for the first time, it was disclosed that the Application

preferred by the Petitioner for grant of permission / regularization came to be

rejected by the Respondents.            The said order was, however, not

communicated to the Petitioner, as mandated by the provisions contained in


SSP                                                                2/5
                                                             15 wp 11248 of 2026.doc

Section 45(4) of the Act, 1966. The Petitioner was, therefore, deprived of the

statutory remedy of assailing the said order before the State Government.

The Petitioner has a strong case on merits, and, therefore, the execution and

operation of the impugned order be stayed till this petition is heard on merits.

6.    Mr. Dighe, learned Counsel for the Respondents, strongly opposed the

submissions on behalf of the Petitioner. It was urged that the reply filed by

the Petitioner to the show cause notice itself makes it clear that, in the

estimation of the Petitioner, the structure was temporary and the Petitioner

was in the process of obtaining the permission of the planning authority by

submitting a plan through an Architect.       That implies that there was no

permission for erection of the structure, in the first place. It was further

submitted that, in view of the development in law, which frowns upon

tolerance towards unauthorized construction, the Petition does not deserve to

be entertained.

7.    I have perused the material on record. Incontrovertibly, there was no

permission for erection of the structure in question.         The fact that the

Petitioner’s trust is the owner of the land over which the structure is erected,

is of no significance. Nor the nature of the activity which the Petitioner carries

in the said structure has any bearing upon the question, which was required

to be determined by the Courts below.         Both the Courts, in exercise of

discretionary jurisdiction, have held that the structure was erected sans any


SSP                                                                  3/5
                                                            15 wp 11248 of 2026.doc

permission from the planning authority.

8.      The legal position is well nigh settled. Suffice to make a reference to

the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Barjatya

and Anr. V/s. U.P.Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Ors. 1 wherein the

Supreme Court has emphasised that the constructions put up in violation of or

deviation from the building plan approved by the local authority and the

constructions which are audaciously put up without any building planning

approval cannot be encouraged. Each and every construction must be made

scrupulously following and strictly adhering to the Rules. In the event of any

violation being brought to the notice of the courts, it has to be curtailed with

iron hands and any lenience afforded to them would amount to showing

misplaced sympathy.

9.      The learned District Judge has correctly appreciated the facts of the

case and exercised jurisdiction not to interfere with the exercise of discretion

by the Trial Court. Thus, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Petition

against exercise of concurrent discretion by the Courts below.

10.     The submission on behalf of the Petitioner that, the Petitioner was not

communicated the order rejecting the permission, purportedly passed by the

Planning Authority on 26 December 2025, also prima facie does not advance

the cause of the Petitioner, as in the written statement filed on behalf of the


1    2024 INSC 990

SSP                                                                 4/5
                                                                                      15 wp 11248 of 2026.doc

                      Respondents, on 4 April 2026, it was categorically contended that the

                      application for permission / regularization was rejected by the Competent

                      Authority. The Petitioner ought to have taken measures as available in law to

                      assail the legality and propriety of the said order of rejection.

                      11.      As regards the grievance of the Petitioner that the Petitioner was

                      deprived of the liberty to avail remedy of appeal before the State Government

                      under Section 47 of the MRTP Act, 1966, this Court does not deem it

                      appropriate to delve into the thickets of facts as to whether the rejection of the

                      building permission was communicated to the Petitioner.

                      12.      Yet, to provide an efficacious opportunity and to rule out the possibility

                      of prejudice to the Petitioner, this Court deems it appropriate to give one

                      week’s time to the Petitioner to approach the State Government assailing the

                      order dated 26 December 2025 passed by the Planning Authority.

                      13.      Thus, to facilitate the Petitioner to avail the remedies as available in law

                      qua the said order dated 26 December 2025, till the expiry of the period of

                      one week, no action be taken against the structure in question on the basis of

                      the impugned notice.

                      14.      Subject to the aforesaid liberty and protection for a limited duration, the

                      Writ Petition stands dismissed.




                                                                            ( N.J.JAMADAR, J. )

                      SSP                                                                     5/5



Signed by: S.S.Phadke
Designation: PS To Honourable Judge
Date: 29/08/2026 19:28:24