AMOGH NANDKUMAR KULKARNIversusKARJAT MUNICIPAL COUNCIL AND ORS

                                                                              11-WP.12148.2026.doc

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

                            WRIT PETITION NO. 12148 OF 2026

          Amogh Nandakumar Kulkarni                       }      Petitioner
               Versus
          Karjat Municipal Council & Ors.                 }      Respondents


          Mr. Anirban Tripathy, Advocates for the Petitioner.

          Ms. Neha S. Bhide, Government Pleader with Ms. M. P.
          Thakur, AGP for Respondent No. 4-State.


                        CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &
                                ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.

                        DATE        : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026

          P.C.:
          1.      Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned
          Government Pleader.

          2.      The instant Petition is preferred, inter alia, seeking the
          following reliefs: -

                  “a.   That this Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any
                  other writ direction or order of the like nature directing Respondent No
                  1 and 4 to demolish the illegal construction carried out by Respondent
                  No 2 and 3;
                  b.    That this Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No 2 and 3
                  to execute release deed with regard to EP 31 in favour of Respondent
                  No 1;
                  c.     That this Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No 2 and 3
                  to provide road for EP 31;
                  d.    That this Court be pleased to direct Respondent No 1 to
                  demolish any illegal construction that has been carried out on EP 31
                  e.    That this Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No 1 to set
                  up a garden on EP 31.”



                                                    1
                                                        11-WP.12148.2026.doc


3.    In view of the order that we propose to pass today, no notice is
required to be issued to the Respondents. The record reveals, the
Respondent No. 1, i.e., Karjat Municipal Council had initially
passed Resolution No. 290 on 20th October 1997 and made a
declaration under Section 23 read with Sections 34 and 38 of the
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (in short,
"MRTP Act") and expressed its intention to prepare a Draft
Development Plan for newly added area of the Dahivali, Tart, Need
and Akurle and revised the sanctioned plan for the old area within
its territorial jurisdiction. Consequently, the necessary notices were
also published in the official Gazette.

4.    The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that after
considering the objections and suggestions from public, the
Government has sanctioned R+AA Development Plan for Karjat,
excluding certain parts, which were numbered as EP1 to EP39.
After considering the various objections, the Deputy Director, Town
Planning, Konkan Division was appointed as an Officer under
Section 31(2) of the MRTP Act, which had submitted its report vide
letter dated 29th August 2007. Later on, the Government of
Maharashtra, after receipt of the report and after consulting the
Director of Town Planning, Maharashtra State, sanctioned the
Excluded Parts, i.e. EP1 to EP39 (except EP25) from the
Development Plan of Karjat by extending the period sanctioning the
excluded parts up to 25th May 2010. 1" July 2010 was fixed as the
date on which the Development Plan of excluded parts shall come
into force.

5.    The learned Counsel for the Petitioner, in this backdrop,
vehemently submitted that as per the Development Plan, EP31 has
been reserved for playground and garden. He submitted that the


                                   2
                                                                               11-WP.12148.2026.doc


                      Petitioner on 19th March 2025 had lodged a detailed complaint with
                      Respondent No. 1 highlighting various illegalities committed by
                      Respondent No. 2. However, in spite of the notice, Respondent No. 1
                      has failed to undertake any effective measures to redress the
                      grievance as highlighted in the complaint. He further submitted
                      that at present, the Petitioner would confine the relief claimed in
                      the instant Petition to a direction to the Respondent Authority to
                      finalize the proceedings in accordance with law.

                      6.     Considering the relief claimed and the case set up by the
                      Petitioner, at this stage, we are not inclined to advert to the merits
                      of the matter. However, we observe that as the first Respondent has
                      already taken cognizance and notice has already been issued to
                      Respondent No. 2, we expect the said proceedings be decided
                      expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of
                      production of a certified copy of this order. The proceedings be
                      finalized after furnishing an opportunity of hearing to all the
                      parties, especially Respondent No. 3.

                      7.     With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petition is Disposed Of.

                      8.     It is made clear that we have not adverted to the merits of the
                      matter and all contentions of the parties are kept open.


JAYANT
VISHWANATH
SALUNKE

Digitally signed by
                           [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.]                       [CHIEF JUSTICE]
JAYANT VISHWANATH
SALUNKE
Date: 2026.09.23
11:49:14 +0530




                                                          3