11-WP.12148.2026.doc Salunke IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12148 OF 2026 Amogh Nandakumar Kulkarni } Petitioner Versus Karjat Municipal Council & Ors. } Respondents Mr. Anirban Tripathy, Advocates for the Petitioner. Ms. Neha S. Bhide, Government Pleader with Ms. M. P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent No. 4-State. CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J. DATE : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Government Pleader. 2. The instant Petition is preferred, inter alia, seeking the following reliefs: - “a. That this Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ direction or order of the like nature directing Respondent No 1 and 4 to demolish the illegal construction carried out by Respondent No 2 and 3; b. That this Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No 2 and 3 to execute release deed with regard to EP 31 in favour of Respondent No 1; c. That this Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No 2 and 3 to provide road for EP 31; d. That this Court be pleased to direct Respondent No 1 to demolish any illegal construction that has been carried out on EP 31 e. That this Court be pleased to direct the Respondent No 1 to set up a garden on EP 31.” 1 11-WP.12148.2026.doc 3. In view of the order that we propose to pass today, no notice is required to be issued to the Respondents. The record reveals, the Respondent No. 1, i.e., Karjat Municipal Council had initially passed Resolution No. 290 on 20th October 1997 and made a declaration under Section 23 read with Sections 34 and 38 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (in short, "MRTP Act") and expressed its intention to prepare a Draft Development Plan for newly added area of the Dahivali, Tart, Need and Akurle and revised the sanctioned plan for the old area within its territorial jurisdiction. Consequently, the necessary notices were also published in the official Gazette. 4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that after considering the objections and suggestions from public, the Government has sanctioned R+AA Development Plan for Karjat, excluding certain parts, which were numbered as EP1 to EP39. After considering the various objections, the Deputy Director, Town Planning, Konkan Division was appointed as an Officer under Section 31(2) of the MRTP Act, which had submitted its report vide letter dated 29th August 2007. Later on, the Government of Maharashtra, after receipt of the report and after consulting the Director of Town Planning, Maharashtra State, sanctioned the Excluded Parts, i.e. EP1 to EP39 (except EP25) from the Development Plan of Karjat by extending the period sanctioning the excluded parts up to 25th May 2010. 1" July 2010 was fixed as the date on which the Development Plan of excluded parts shall come into force. 5. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner, in this backdrop, vehemently submitted that as per the Development Plan, EP31 has been reserved for playground and garden. He submitted that the 2 11-WP.12148.2026.doc Petitioner on 19th March 2025 had lodged a detailed complaint with Respondent No. 1 highlighting various illegalities committed by Respondent No. 2. However, in spite of the notice, Respondent No. 1 has failed to undertake any effective measures to redress the grievance as highlighted in the complaint. He further submitted that at present, the Petitioner would confine the relief claimed in the instant Petition to a direction to the Respondent Authority to finalize the proceedings in accordance with law. 6. Considering the relief claimed and the case set up by the Petitioner, at this stage, we are not inclined to advert to the merits of the matter. However, we observe that as the first Respondent has already taken cognizance and notice has already been issued to Respondent No. 2, we expect the said proceedings be decided expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The proceedings be finalized after furnishing an opportunity of hearing to all the parties, especially Respondent No. 3. 7. With the aforesaid directions, the Writ Petition is Disposed Of. 8. It is made clear that we have not adverted to the merits of the matter and all contentions of the parties are kept open. [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE] 3 JAYANT VISHWANATH SALUNKE Digitally signed by JAYANT VISHWANATH SALUNKE Date: 2026.09.23 11:49:14 +0530