Bombay High Court
SHRI. BHAGWAT RAMCHANDRA SHINDEversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH COLLECTOR OF PUNE AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
- Bench
- GAURI GODSE
Holding
The court disposed the writ petition without granting an injunction, ordering a stay of the notice's implementation pending the decision on the regularisation application.
Summary
The petitioner, Shri Bhagwat Ramchandra Shinde, filed a writ petition seeking an injunction to restrain certain respondents from executing a notice dated 17 June 2016 issued under Section 54 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act and from removing his construction or obstructing his possession. He argued that his application for regularisation of the property, filed on 3 June 2023, had not been decided on merits despite submitting the required documents. The court noted that the regularisation application remained pending and that the respondents had requested additional documents, which the petitioner was prepared to supply. Consequently, the court declined to grant an interim injunction, directing the City Survey Officer to expedite the regularisation decision and ordering the stay of the notice's implementation pending that decision. The petitioner was instructed to submit the latest property card and an affidavit undertaking to remove the structure if the regularisation decision is adverse, while retaining his right to appeal under the MRTP Act. The writ petition was therefore disposed without an injunction.
Issues considered
- Whether an interim injunction should be granted to restrain the implementation of a notice under Section 54 of the MRTP Act pending the decision on a regularisation application.
- Whether the court can stay the notice and related actions while the regularisation application is pending.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- injunction
- stay order
- regularisation
- MRTP Act
- property dispute
- civil writ
- construction removal
Judgment
4-wp-8539-2019.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
varsha
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8539 OF 2019
Shri Bhagwat Ramchandra Shinde … Petitioner
vs.
State of Maharashtra through Collector of … Respondents
Pune and Ors
Mr. Bhalchandra S. Shinde for the Petitioner
Digitally
signed by
Mr. Rahul S. Kate for Respondent No.3.
VARSHA
VARSHA VIJAY
VIJAY RAJGURU
RAJGURU Date:
2026.01.29
Mr. Rahul S. Kadam for Respondent No.4.
13:05:20
+0530
Ms. Ashwini A. Purav, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2-State.
CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.
DATED : 28th JANUARY 2026
ORDER:
1. This petition is filed by the plaintiff to challenge the order
passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appeal court rejecting
the petitioner’s application for the order of injunction. The plaintiff
prayed for an order of injunction to protect the suit property,
restraining respondent nos. 2 and 3 from implementing suit notice
dated 17th June 2016 issued under Section 54 of the Maharashtra
Regional and Town Planning Act (‘MRTP Act’). The suit is filed
restraining defendant nos. 2 and 3 from removing the construction
made by the plaintiff and restraining defendant no. 4 from
Page no. 1 of 5
4-wp-8539-2019.doc
obstructing his possession.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has already
filed application dated 3rd June 2023, for regularisation. He submits
that the regularisation application is not processed for want of
certain documents. This court vide order dated 27 th June 2023 and
24th December 2025 had recorded the submissions on behalf of
respondent no.3 that the application for regularisation would be
decided. Since, the application for regularisation was not decided on
merits, and the petitioner was called upon to submit documents, by
order dated 12th January 2026, the grievance on behalf of the
petitioner is recorded, that despite submitting all the documents, the
petitioner’s application for regularisation was not decided on merits.
Learned counsel for respondent no.3 was therefore given time to
take instructions with regard to the application for regularisation.
3. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 has tendered a copy of
letter dated 22nd January 2026, issued to the petitioner calling upon
him to submit two documents. A copy of the letter is taken on record.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recent property
card is already submitted. However, he shall submit a fresh copy of
the property card with respondent no.3. With regard to the
requisition for submitting a survey map, learned counsel for the
Page no. 2 of 5
4-wp-8539-2019.doc
petitioner submits that the survey map of the entire Gat Number is
already submitted. However, the petitioner would require time to
submit the survey map of his property. He has tendered copy of the
application dated 19th January 2026 filed before the City Survey
Officer for providing survey map. A copy of the application is
provided to the learned AGP.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the
survey map of his property is provided by the City Survey Officer,
the same shall be submitted before respondent no.3. He therefore
submits that the structure be protected during the pendency of the
regularisation application. He further on instructions submits that in
the event, the decision of regularisation application is adverse to the
petitioner, he would comply with the notice impugned in the suit,
subject to the petitioner’s right to file an appeal under MRTP Act.
5. The suit is for an injunction restraining defendant nos. 2 and 3
from removing the suit structure. The plaintiff has also prayed for an
injunction restraining defendant no.4 from obstructing plaintiff’s
possession over the suit property.
6. In view of the aforesaid statement regarding implementing the
suit notice, subject to the decision of the regularisation application,
nothing would survive for further consideration in this petition. The
Page no. 3 of 5
4-wp-8539-2019.doc
application for interim temporary injunction is only against
respondent nos. 2 and 3. Hence, the plaintiff would be at liberty to
proceed with the suit against defendant no. 4. So far as present
petition is concerned, in view of the aforesaid reasons, the petition is
disposed of by passing the following order:
I. Learned AGP shall intimate the concerned City Survey Officer
from the office of Taluka Inspector of Land Records, Indapur
to decide the application dated 19th January 2026, filed by the
petitioner as expeditiously as possible.
II. The survey map shall be thereafter submitted before
respondent no.3 by the concerned City Survey Officer with a
copy to the petitioner.
III. The petitioner shall submit a copy of latest property card with
respondent no.3 within four weeks from today.
IV. After the necessary documents as recorded above are
submitted before respondent no.3, the regularisation
application dated 30th June 2023 filed by the petitioner shall
be decided by respondent no.3 within four weeks from the
date of supplying the documents.
V. The petitioner shall file affidavit-cum-undertaking stating that
in the event, the decision on regularisation application is
Page no. 4 of 5
4-wp-8539-2019.doc
adverse to him, he shall remove the notice structure within
four weeks from the date of intimation of the decision to him in
writing, subject to the petitioner’s right to file an appeal under
MRTP Act. Such an affidavit-cum-undertaking shall be filed in
the trial court within four weeks from today.
VI. Till the decision, on the regularisation application, the
impugned notice dated 17th June 2016 shall not be
implemented. In the event, the decision of regularisation
application is adverse to the petitioner, the suit notice shall not
be implemented for a period of four weeks from the date of
intimation of the decision to the petitioner in writing.
7. The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(GAURI GODSE, J.)
Page no. 5 of 5
Checking your session…