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 MAYUR KONDIRAM ADANE Digitally signed by MAYUR KONDIRAM ADANE Date: 2026.09.29 14:08:48 +0530 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. 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 31st 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 27th 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 31st 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