PDP 20-WP-12537-2026.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12537 OF 2026 The Ghar Bachav Samiti through its authorized Signatories .. Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents ... Mr. Umeshkumar K. Bisen for the Petitioners. Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, Government Pleader with Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. Government Pleader and Mrs. G. R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 – State. ... CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J. DATE : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2026. P.C. : 1. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. 2. In view of the order that we propose to pass today, we are not inclined to issue notice to the Respondents or keep the matter pending. 3. The instant Writ Petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the Respondents to declare that the reservation of land bearing Survey Nos.56/3, 56/4 and 56/5 of Mouja Kharadi, Taluka Haveli, District – Pune is illegal and void and it be declared as lapsed under Section 127 of the Maharashtra 1 PRAVIN DASHARATH PANDIT Digitally signed by PRAVIN DASHARATH PANDIT Date: 2026.09.29 10:19:01 +0530 PDP 20-WP-12537-2026.doc Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (in short, “the MRTP Act”) in respect of the proposed reservation dated 30th November, 2005 in Revised Development Plan for the city of Pune for S.T. Depot and Timber Market vide Reservation dated 21st May, 2007. Subsequently, the Draft Development Plan was submitted for modification under Section 28(4) of the MRTP Act and in terms of EP-57 to 78 of the Development Plan sanctioned by the Government vide notification No. TPS-1813/CR-596/13/EP Sanction UD-13 dated 13th February, 2014. On 26th March, 2024, the Petitioners issued a formal statutory representation/notice under Section 127 of the MRTP Act to the Respondent-Authorities stating that because no steps for acquisition were taken within ten years, the reservation had lapsed and could not be revived, demanding that the subject land be de-reserved. The said representation/notice under Section 127 of the MRPT Act is still pending consideration. 4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that as the Revised Plan was approved way back on 13th February, 2014 and sufficient time has been lapsed, a direction be issued to the Respondents to process the representation/notice dated 26th March, 2024 under Section 127 of the MRPT Act of the Petitioners for de- reserving the subject land of the Petitioners. 5. In this backdrop the learned Counsel for the Petitioners confined to the relief that since the statutory period, i.e., 10 years, has lapsed, the Respondents may be directed to process the representation/notice dated 26th March, 2024, under Section 127 of the MRTP Act, of the Petitioners in accordance with law. 2 PDP 20-WP-12537-2026.doc 6. Considering the factual situation as emerged before us, we find that the MRTP Act itself is self contained Act. As it is claimed that the revised plan was approved on 13th February, 2014, we direct the Respondent-Authorities to decide the representation/notice dated 26th March, 2024 under Section 127 of the MRPT Act of the Petitioners in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this Order. 7. In view of the above, Writ Petition is Disposed Of. 8. Needless to state, we have not adverted to the merits of the matter and all contentions are kept open. [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE] 3