4-wp-8539-2019.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8539 OF 2019 Shri Bhagwat Ramchandra Shinde … Petitioner vs. State of Maharashtra through Collector of Pune and Ors … Respondents Mr. Bhalchandra S. Shinde for the Petitioner Mr. Rahul S. Kate for Respondent No.3. Mr. Rahul S. Kadam for Respondent No.4. 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 varsha VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Digitally signed by VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Date: 2026.01.29 13:05:20 +0530 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 27th 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