VIRESH SURESH MAHINDRARKARversusRAMA SAKHARAM NIKAM AND ORS.

                                                           1/8                      6 WP 4328-10.doc


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


MANALI
         signed by
         MANALI
         PRASANNA
                                         WRIT PETITION NO. 4328 OF 2010
PRASANNA TILAK
TILAK    Date:
         2026.09.09
         15:04:21
         +0530

                      Viresh Suresh Mahindrarka                              ..   Petitioner
                                            Versus
                      Rama Sakharam Nikam and ors                            ..   Respondents

                                                    …
                      Mr. R.M. Pethe with Mr.S.A. Joshi for the petitioner.
                      Ms.Minal Chandnani with Rajesh Ranglani for respondent nos.1
                      and 2.
                      Mr.Suresh M.Kamble for respondent no.3.
                      Mr.Karan S. Thorat ‘B’ Panel counsel with Mr.M.M. Pable, AGP
                      for the State.

                                               CORAM : BHARATI DANGRE &
                                                       ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ
                                               DATED : 7th SEPTEMBER, 2026


                      ORAL JUDGMENT (PER BHARATI DANGRE, J):-

                      1.      Heard Mr. Pethe, learned counsel for the petitioner,
                      Ms.Minal Chandnani for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, Mr.Suresh
                      Kamble for Respondent No.3 and the learned AGP for State.

                      2.      The petitioner approached this Court with the following
                      reliefs :-
                              “(a)     Quash and set aside the Certificate of Regularisation at Sr.
                              No.85 dated 28/11/2007 issued by the Designated Authority in
                              respect of the House No. 146, U.No. 79(Part), Chalta No.154 Lal
                              Chakki, Station Road, Ulhasnagar – 4 and the commencement
                              certificate dated 17/08/2009 bearing No.meik@ujfo@ckai@64/07/495 as
                              also the Completion Certificate dated 05/09/2009 bearing
                              No.miek@ujfo@tk-dz@ckai@64/07/605 by issuing appropriate writs, orders
                              and directions ;

                      Tilak
                                   2/8                      6 WP 4328-10.doc



        (b)      direct the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation to demolish
        the structure and the part of the property which is affected by the
        Sanctioned Development Plan Road;
        (c)      Direct the Ulhasnagar Municipal Corporation and the
        State of Maharashtra to hold an enquiry in the matter and to take
        appropriate action against the persons responsible for the illegal
        regularization and building permission and issuance of completion
        certificate.”
         The petition came to be admitted and was directed by us
to be listed for final hearing upon the pleadings being
completed.

3.       It is the contention of Mr.Pethe, that the regularisation of
the structure belonging to respondent nos.1 and 2 at the
instance of the Municipal Corporation is in violation of the
provisions of the Regularisation of Unauthorised Developments
in the City of Ulhasnagar Act, 2006 which came into force from
14/1/2006.

         By inviting our attention to Section 4, it is his submission
that the statute has enumerated the circumstances in which the
unauthorised development may or may not be regularised and
sub-section (1) of Section 4 provide for a contingency, when an
unauthorised development shall not be regularised under sub-
section (3) of Section 3, if it is carried on :
        (i)      land under alignment of existing public roads or an
        internal road, of approved layout;

         Therefore, it is a contention advanced that since this land
was indicated as a development road (DP) in 1974 for the city
of Ulhasnagar and being so shown in the Development Plan, its
regularisation is illegal and therefore,                the petitioner         seek

Tilak
                             3/8                6 WP 4328-10.doc


quashing and setting aside of the said order along with the
necessary permissions that are being granted for construction of
the said property.
        The prayer in the petition is vehemently opposed by the
counsel representing respondent nos.1 and 2 as well as the
learned counsel representing the Municipal Corporation.

4.      A perusal of the Special Enactment, Maharashtra Act
No.IX of 2006 would reveal that the said Act was enacted to
regularise    unauthorised    developments    in    the      City   of
Ulhasnagar, as it was noted that there has been unauthorised
development in the City on large scale and such unauthorised
developments were liable to be removed and pulled down by
minimising the hardship to be caused to large number of people
and in the wake of this, the Statute was enacted.

        It defined unauthorised development in Section 2(d) to
mean the development carried out without obtaining the
permission of the authority competent to give such permission
or in contravention of the permission.

5.      Section 3 provide for the permissibility of regularisation
of unauthorised development and it set out the principles
subject to which unauthorised structures would be regularised
by setting out the procedure to be followed, which included
Constitution of the Committee of Experts, with the knowledge
and experience in structural engineering and pursuant to each
case being examined on its merits, the regularisation was
permitted.

Tilak
                                 4/8                  6 WP 4328-10.doc


         Sub-section (1) of Section 4 however, set out the
contingency when the unauthorised development shall not be
regularised under sub-section (3) of Section 3, and this is in the
following contingencies :-
        (i) land under alignment of existing public roads or an internal
        road, of approved layout;
        (ii) water courses and water bodies like tank beds, river beds,
        natural drainage and such other places; and
        (iii) areas earmarked for the purposes of obnoxious and
        hazardous industrial development.


6.       Since Mr.Pethe would invoke sub-section(1) of Section 4,
we have carefully read the said provision to find out that
unauthorised development shall not be regularised if it is
carried on a land under alignment of “existing public roads or
an internal road, of approved layout”.

         A plain reading of the aforesaid clause would reveal that
if the unauthorised development is on the land which is under
the alignment of the existing public roads or approved layout,
then it shall not be regularised.                It, however, do not
contemplate merely a DP Road which is shown in a
development plan, as it is merely on paper and physically, there
is no existing public road or an internal road.

         This is the reason why we fail to entertain the petition, as
the regularisation of the respondent nos.1 and 2 at the instance
of the Municipal Corporation is opposed on the ground of
clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 4, but we find that since
it was only on paper and the structure or the land was not
coming in the way of existing public road or internal road of

Tilak
                             5/8                 6 WP 4328-10.doc


approved layout, there was no question of it not being
regularised.

        In any case, a bare reading of sub-section (1) of Section 4,
the stipulation no.(i) would clearly reveal to us that it is not
permissible for the Corporation to regularise the unauthorised
development, if it was on the existing public road or an internal
road of approved layout as it is necessary to have the public
road or if there is an internal road of approved layout,
regularising such a structure would cause grave hardship to the
persons residing in that locality and using the public road or the
internal road of the approved layout.

7.      In the present case, however, we find that what is being
objected to, is the proposed DP road in the development plan
which was sanctioned, but the petition being filed in the year
2010, we are informed that the Development Plan of 1976
then stood suitably revised when it was again amended when
the revised DP was declared in the year 2017.

        Though Mr.Pethe would vehemently submit before us that
the provisions of the Act will have to be read with the
provisions of MRTP and in specific, Section 46, we do not
dispute the proposition that the Planning Authority in
considering the application for permission shall definitely have
due regard to the provisions of any Draft or Final plan or
proposal. However, we must also note that as we find that
respondent nos.1 and 2 have preferred an application for
regularisation to the Designated Authority, upon an application

Tilak
                            6/8                6 WP 4328-10.doc


being preferred, the regularisation is granted by order dated
28/11/2007 and we find that the Act No. X of 2006 came into
force from 14/1/2006 and by taking recourse to the provisions
of the said Act, the regularisation is granted and since there is
no embargo as contained in sub-section (1) of Section 4, as
sought to be pressed into service, the regularisation is granted.
In any case, we find that down the line, in the year 2026, when
much water has flown with the Development Plan also being
revised and definitely, this regularised structure must have been
taken into consideration and some other DP road must have
been chalked out in the revised Development Plan.
8.      Another aspect on which Mr.Pethe would invite our
attention by filing an additional affidavit is an order passed in
PIL No. 179/2010 which is annexed along with the additional
affidavit.
        The order at Exhibit-A to the said affidavit would reveal
that upon a PIL being filed by one Ashok Bodha, targeting the
Town Planner i.e. respondent no.4 who projected before the
Court that 12 Development permissions by the Town Planner,
and it is in this background, the Division Bench of this Court
deemed it appropriate to direct the Principal Secretary, Urban
Development Department, Government of Maharashtra as well
as Commissioner of the Corporation to consider the grievance
of the petitioner and to find out if it is genuine or not, after
holding an inquiry. The PIL petition was therefore, disposed of
with the aforesaid direction.


Tilak
                               7/8                      6 WP 4328-10.doc


         It is also brought to our notice that in furtherance thereof,
disciplinary proceedings were initiated against respondent no.4
Mr. Gurgule and some orders are placed on record under which
he was subjected to some penalty or action at the Departmental
level.
         We do not find any direction as regards the 12 structures
alleged       to    be     unauthorisedly            permitted        to   be
constructed/erected,       and       as   far   as     the    departmental
proceedings are concerned, they have been concluded by
imposition of appropriate penalty. However, we are informed
that no action has been directed to be taken against the
objectionable structures, and therefore, we do not find any
merit in the submission of Mr. Pethe that the structures must be
demolished because it was agreed that they were unauthorised.
         In absence of any such finding to that effect, merely
because the person who granted permission has been subjected
to disciplinary proceedings and some penalty has been imposed
upon him, unless and until the Corporation declare the
structure to be particularly illegal and as on date, when we find
that the objection of the petitioner is that the regularisation has
been granted in violation of the provisions of the Act, and since
we find no merit in the said contention, we do not expect any
action at the instance of the Corporation against the structure
of the respondent nos.1 and 2, only on the ground that
according to the petitioner, it is an unauthorised structure.




Tilak
                             8/8              6 WP 4328-10.doc


        Finding no merit and substance, we discharge ‘Rule’ and
dismiss the Writ Petition.



(ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J)                   (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)




Tilak