bdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10741 OF 2026 Kailas Sopan Panmand & Ors. …. Petitioners. Vs. Chakan Nagar Parishad through its Chief Officer & Anr. …. Respondents. Mr. Prasad Kulkarni with Mr. Shubham S. Sane i/b Mr. Priyal G. Sarda, Advocates for the Petitioners. Mr. Abhijeet A. Desai a/w Ms. Mohini A. Desai (Rehpade), Mr. Vijay Singh, Ms. Daksha M. Punghera, Mr Deeepesh R., Mr. Monan Daga, Mr. G. Shaik, Advocates for Respondent No.1. Mr. B. V. Samant, Addl. G.P. with Mr. S.P. Kamble, AGP for Respondent No.2. CORAM :RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, ACJ. & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. DATE : 20th August, 2026. P.C. : 1. The Petitioners have filed this Petition seeking the following reliefs:- 1/6 914. WP-10741-2026.odt “(a) issue a Writ of Certiorari, or a writ in the nature of Certiorari, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, calling for the records and proceedings culminating in the order dated 23.07.2026 (No.0960/2026, Exhibit “F”) and the notice dated 12.08.2026 (No.2002/2026, Exhibit “L”) issued by Respondent No.1, and after examining the legality and validity thereof, quash and set aside the same; (b) issue a Writ of Mandamus, or a writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction: (i) directing the City Survey Officer/Taluka Inspector of Land Records, Khed, or such other competent authority, to carry out a joint measurement of the said land, including the extent and alignment of the 20-foot road alleged by the original complainant to pass through Gat No.600, in the presence of the Petitioners and Respondent No.1, within a stipulated period, and to furnish a copy of the measurement sheet to the Petitioners and to Respondent No.1; and (ii) directing Respondent No.1 to decide the Petitioners’ pending application dated 11.08.2026 (Application No.CBCFZ202600072, Exhibit “F”) for development/building permission under Section 44 of the MRTP Act expeditiously and in accordance with law, after affording the Petitioners a reasonable opportunity of personal hearing.” 2. The various factors borne out from the pleadings and the record before us, can be summarised as under : (i) The Petitioners claim to be the owners and in possession of an undivided portion of land admeasuring 260 sq. metres bearing Gat No./City Survey No.600 at Village Chakan, Taluka Khed, District Pune. 2/6 914. WP-10741-2026.odt (ii) On 3rd November 2025, Respondent No.2 issued a notice under Section 335 of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, calling upon the Petitioners to furnish documents, plans and clarifications in relation to the alleged unauthorized construction being carried out on a 20 feet wide road which passes through Gat No.600. (iii) Vide a reply dated 10th November 2025, Petitioner No.1, denied the allegations and contended that no such road existed or was demarcated in the development plan. (iv) On 8th February 2026, Respondent No.1 issued a notice under Section 53(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (“MRTP Act”), alleging unauthorized development on the said land and calling upon the Petitioners, either to obtain the requisite permission or restore the land to its original condition, failing which, further action would be taken under the MRTP Act. (v) Vide an Application dated 12th March 2026, Petitioner No.1, contended that all construction activities on Gat No.600 had been stopped and that the Petitioners were in the process of obtaining the requisite building permissions in accordance with law. 3/6 914. WP-10741-2026.odt (vi) However, it appears that no such application was thereafter filed. Consequently, by the impugned order dated 23rd July 2026, Respondent No.1 rejected the clarification dated 12th March, 2026 furnished by Petitioner No.1 seeking withdrawal of its notice and made it clear that appropriate action would be initiated against the Petitioners. (vii) On 10th August 2026, Respondent No.1 called upon the Petitioners to remain present for a hearing scheduled on 12th August, 2026 at 12.30 p.m., before the Chief Officer. (viii) On 11th August 2026, the Petitioners purportedly submitted an application to Respondent No.1 under Sections 18, 44, 58 and 69 of the MRTP Act, read with the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, seeking regularization / development permission for construction on the plot. The Petitioners claim to have paid necessary charges and executed documents in support of their Application. (ix) On 12th August 2026, the hearing could not be conducted on account of administrative exigencies and Respondent No.1, vide a notice, rescheduled the hearing on 13th August, 2026. 4/6 914. WP-10741-2026.odt (x) It is in this backdrop that, on 17th August, 2026, the present Petition has been filed seeking quashing of Respondent No.1’s rejection of the Petitioners’ explanation and also staying of the notice dated 12th August, 2026. 3. We have heard Mr. Prasad Kulkarni, learned counsel for the Petitioners. In our view, the Petition is premature and does not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The record itself indicates that Respondent No.1 has afforded the Petitioners an opportunity of hearing and when the hearing could not take place on 12th August, 2026 for administrative reasons, it was rescheduled to 13th August 2026. The Petitioners have not disclosed what transpired on the adjourned date, nor have they placed on record any order passed pursuant to the said hearing. Instead, they have approached this Court without allowing the statutory authority to complete the process initiated by it. There is no denial of natural justice or any exceptional circumstance warranting interference at this stage. 4. In these circumstances, we find no merit in the Petition. The approach adopted by Respondent No.1 cannot be faulted. The Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. 5/6 914. WP-10741-2026.odt 5. We direct that, the process of hearing initiated Respondent No.1, shall be taken to it’s logical end. After hearing the Petitioners, Respondent No.1 shall pass a reasoned order within 8 weeks from today. If it finds that any unauthorized structure has been constructed upon a road, Respondent No.1 shall take appropriate action including demolition of the same in accordance with law. [ GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. ] [ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ] 6/6 914. WP-10741-2026.odt BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT Digitally signed by BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT Date: 2026.08.21 16:02:24 +0530