Bombay High Court
EKNATH SHANKAR JAMBULKAR AND ANRversusPUNE METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioners are bound by their earlier undertaking and there is no basis for the Court to interfere with the notice, order, or regularisation proceedings.
Summary
The petitioners, Eknath Shankar Jambulkar and others, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking to quash a notice and subsequent order issued under Section 53(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act, as well as orders related to the regularisation of their structure. The respondents, Pune Metropolitan Region Development Authority (PMRDA) and others, contended that the petition was not maintainable because the petitioners had earlier given a categorical undertaking in a related writ proceeding (Writ Petition No. 7239 of 2026) to comply with demolition if regularisation was denied. The Court examined whether the earlier undertaking barred the petitioners from challenging the notice and regularisation orders. Relying on the undertaking, the Court held that the petitioners could not resile from their promise and that there was no ground for interference with the respondents' orders. Consequently, the Court granted the petitioners an additional three weeks to demolish the unauthorised structure and dismissed the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of the petitioners' prior categorical undertaking in Writ Petition No. 7239 of 2026.
- Whether the notice and order issued under Section 53(1) of the MRTP Act can be quashed by the High Court.
- Whether the regularisation orders passed by PMRDA are amenable to judicial review.
Legislation cited
- Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act — s. 53(1)
Subjects
- Article 226
- writ of certiorari
- regularisation
- MRTP Act
- categorical undertaking
- unauthorised construction
- demolition
Judgment
19-WP-12522-2026 (C).odt
Pallavi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
by PALLAVI
MAHENDRA
PALLAVI WARGAONKAR
MAHENDRA
WARGAONKAR Date:
2026.09.28
11:17:05
+0530 WRIT PETITION NO. 12522 OF 2026
Eknath Shankar Jambulkar And Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Pune Metropolitan Region Development
Authority And Ors. ...Respondents
...
Mr. Anil. Y. Sakhare, Sr. Advocate i/b. Pradeep Dubey for the
Petitioner.
Mr. Hardas Singh Aland (VC) Proposed Intervenor.
Mr. Rohit Sakhadeo for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 – P.M.R.D.A.
Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, GP a/w Mr. K.B. Dighe, Addl. GP and Mr.
S.P. Kamble, AGP for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
...
CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.
DATE : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
P.C.:
1. This Petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for the following substantive
reliefs:-
“(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of
certiorari thereby quashing and setting aside the Notice
dated 06th February 2019 issued under Section 53(1) of
the MRTP Act (Exhibit "A" hereto) and the consequential
order dated 13th February 2026 issued under Section
53(1) of the MRT Act (Exhibit "B" hereto);
1
19-WP-12522-2026 (C).odt
(b) That this Hon'ble pleased to issue a writ of certiorari
thereby quashing and setting aside impugned order dated
23rd April 2026 passed by the Respondent No.1 for
regularization (Exhibit "G" hereto) and impugned order
dated 24th July 2026 passed by Respondent No.3 through
the Urban Development Department (Exhibit "N" hereto);
(c) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the
Respondent No.1 to hear the regularization application
afresh after due consideration of all documents with
liberty to the Petitioner to file further documents before the
Respondent No.1, including those filed before the
Respondent No.3;
(d) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to stay the effect and
implementation of the Notice dated 6 th February 2019
issued under Section 53(1) of the MRTP Act (Exhibit "A"
hereto) and the consequential order dated 13th February
2026 issued under Section 53(1) of the MRT Act (Exhibit
"B" hereto) till such decision on the regularization
application by the Respondent No.1.”
2. At the outset, Mr. Rohit Sakhadeo, learned counsel for
the Respondent raises an objection qua the maintainability of
the instant Writ Petition. This in light of the categorical
undertaking dated 11th June 2026 furnished by the Petitioner
No.2 in the earlier round of litigation in Writ Petition No.7239
of 2026 (Sheetal Eknath Jambhulkar vs. Pune
Metropolitan Region Development Authority & Ors.) passed
on 11th June 2026. We have also perused upon paragraphs 4
and 5 of the said undertaking, being a part of the said judicial
order, which are reproduced as under for ready reference:-
2
19-WP-12522-2026 (C).odt
“4. Without prejudice to my rights and contentions in
the pending appeal and in the present proceedings, I
hereby undertake that in the event any portion of
the existing structure is found eligible and
permissible for regularisation by the competent
authority, such regularised portion be allowed to be
retained in accordance with law.
5. I further undertake that in the event any portion of
the existing structure is found to be not capable of
being regularised under the applicable provisions of
law, I and/or my husband shall, at our own costs
and expenses and without raising any objection,
remove and demolish such offending and non-
regularisable portion of the structure within a period
of eight weeks or such time as may be granted by
the or directed by this Hon'ble Court.”
3. In view of the categorical undertaking furnished before
the Co-ordinate Bench, as noted above, we are not inclined to
permit the Petitioners to resile from the undertaking given to
this Court. Consequently, no case is made out for us to
intervene in this Petition, qua the impugned order, which in
our view, warrants no interference.
4. In the afore-mentioned backdrop, after arguing the
matter for some time, the learned Senior Counsel for the
Petitioners fairly submits that some more time may be
accorded to Petitioners remove/demolish the unauthorised
construction, on the ground that the same is their only
3
19-WP-12522-2026 (C).odt
residential home, which is denied by the Respondents. Be that
as it may.
5. Accordingly, we grant further three weeks’ time and no
more to the Petitioners to remove/demolish the said
offending /unauthorised structure, which is not regularised.
6. In view of the above, Writ Petition is Dismissed.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]
4
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.