INDERJEET SINGH PABLAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE PRIN. SEC. REVENUE AND FOREST DEPT. AND ORS

           Digitally signed
           by MAYUR
MAYUR    KONDIRAM
KONDIRAM ADANE
ADANE    Date:
         2026.09.29
           14:08:48 +0530
                                                                                       40-WP-12766-2026 (C).doc

    Mayur
                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                              WRIT PETITION NO. 12766 OF 2026

                              Inderjeet Singh Pabla                                  ...Petitioner
                                    Versus
                              The State Of Maharashtra Thr The
                               Prin. Sec. Revenue And Forest Dept. And Ors           ...Respondents
                                                                  ...
                              Adv. Siddharth Jha, a/w Adv. Chetan Gogawale, i/b Law Global
                              Advocates, for the Petitioner.
                              Adv. Pooja Patil, AGP, for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.
                                                                  ...
                                            CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &
                                                    ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.

                                               DATE : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2026.

                              P.C.:
                              1.      We have heard Mr. Siddharth Jha, learned counsel for

                              Petitioner and Ms. Pooja Patil, learned Additional Government

                              Pleader for the Respondent-State.

                              2.      The Petitioner, who is an allottee within the meaning of

                              Section 2(d) of the RERA Act, and joint complainant in MahaRERA

                              Complaint No.CC006000000044521 has preferred the instant writ

                              petition, inter alia, for the following substantive reliefs :-

                                          “(a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue writ of
                                          mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus directing
                                          Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to forthwith proceed with and
                                          execute          Recovery           Warrant          No.
                                          MahaRERA/VH/WARRANT/111/06/023 dated 27 June
                                          2023 issued under Section 40(1) of RERA in Complaint
                                          No.CC006000000044521, strictly in accordance with law,


                                                                  1/5
                                                              40-WP-12766-2026 (C).doc


           within an outer time limit fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

           (b) that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 be directed to recover the
           amount lawfully due under the operative MahaRERA orders
           and the Recovery Warrant as arrears of land revenue,
           including continuing interest only to the extent payable under
           the operative order and warrant, and remit the realised
           amount to the beneficiaries in accordance therewith;

           (c) that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 be directed to take such
           recovery steps as are available and permissible under the
           Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and the applicable
           Rules, including demand, distraint, attachment and
           sale/auction of legally attachable assets of Respondent No.5,
           while excluding assets protected by law and rights of bona
           fide third parties;

           (d) that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 be directed, where necessary
           for effective execution and to the extent authorised by law, to
           call upon Respondent No.5 to furnish particulars of assets,
           bank accounts, receivables, unsold inventory, encumbrances
           and such other information as is relevant to execution of the
           Recovery Warrant;

           (e) that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 be directed to follow the
           applicable mechanism, circulars or instructions governing
           expeditious execution of MahaRERA recovery warrants in
           Thane District and to record reasons for any legal impediment
           encountered during execution;

           (f) that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 be directed to file a sworn
           status report within two weeks and thereafter such periodic
           compliance reports as this Hon'ble Court may direct until the
           Recovery Warrant is fully worked out in accordance with law;”


3.   Adv. Siddharth Jha, learned counsel for Petitioner submits

that the Petitioner is one of the beneficiaries of the final order dated

31st October 2018 passed by the Respondent No. 4 – Maharashtra

Real Estate Regulatory Authority. It is pursuant to such order that

the Recovery Warrant dated 27th June 2023 was issued by the

Respondent No. 4. He submits that the said order dated 31 st




                                      2/5
                                                     40-WP-12766-2026 (C).doc


October 2018 is not challenged by the Respondent No. 5-Developer,

who is the contesting Respondent. Accordingly, he would contend

that in spite of the said order having attained finality, the

Respondent No. 2 – Collector and Respondent No. 3 – Tahsildar and

executive Magistrate have not taken any such step to execute the

same. Such situation has impelled the Petitioner to invoke the writ

jurisdiction of this Court.

4.    At this stage, Ms. Pooja Patil, learned counsel for the

Respondents in support of the Respondents would submit that it is

not as if Respondent No. 3 – Tehsildar want to avoid execution of

the Recovery Warrant dated 27th June 2023. She would contend

that, inter alia, due to disputes inter se between the private parties

the Recovery Warrant could not be executed, by the Respondent No.

3.

5.    Considering the factual situation as emerged before us, we

find that as the Recovery Warrant was already issued by the

Respondent No.4 on 27th June, 2023 under Section 40(1) of the Real

Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 and transmitted to

the Respondent No. 2 – Collector, with a direction to recover the

amount, so directed/ordered from the Respondent No. 5-Developer

as arrears of land revenue and accordingly make subsequent

payment to the Petitioner. Therefore, in the absence of any other



                                 3/5
                                                        40-WP-12766-2026 (C).doc


impediment, we find that the Respondent No. 2 – Collector ought

not to refuse to enforce the Recovery Warrant dated 27 th June 2023

issued by the Respondent No. 4.

6.   Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on

perusal of record we are unable to accept the submission of Ms.

Patil, more particularly defending the action of the concerned

Respondents in regard to non enforcement of the Recovery Warrant

dated 27th June 2023. We are of the prima facie view that the said

Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have adopted a novel device to refrain

from ensuring timely compliance of the order dated 31 st October

2018 passed by the Respondent No. 4. The Real Estate (Regulation

and Development) Act, 2016 itself is a self-contained Act. In absence

of any challenge to the order dated 31st October 2018 passed by

Respondent No. 4, the Respondent No. 2 and 3 have no discretion to

revisit or to circumvent the mandate of a Competent Authority.

7.   Accordingly, we direct the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to enforce

the order dated 31st October 2018 passed by the Respondent No. 4

within six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this

order, in case there is no other impediment.

8.   We also leave it open to the Petitioner, in case the same is not

complied in letter and in spirit, he would be at liberty to file an

appropriate   Application   for   recall/modification    of    this     order



                                  4/5
                                                       40-WP-12766-2026 (C).doc


including resorting to such other proceeding, as advised, in

accordance with law, to enforce this order.

9.     With the above observations/directions the Writ Petition

accordingly Disposed Of.

10.    Accordingly, an Affidavit reporting compliance is to be filed by

Respondent Nos.2 and 3, respectively, within six weeks from the

date of production of certified copy of this order, by the Petitioner.

11.    List the Writ Petition For Compliance on 23rd December

2026.



     [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.]                       [CHIEF JUSTICE]




                                   5/5