bdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10811 OF 2026 Mohammed Yusuf Abdul Karim @ Yusuf Karim .. Petitioner Vs. Pune Metropolitan Region Development Authority and Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Hemant Ingle with Mr. Pratik Ingle, Mr. Mrunal Ingle, Mr. Imtiyaz S. and Mr. Umar Kazi, i/by Mr. Prashant S. Goyal, Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr. Rohit Sakhadeo, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2-PMRDA. Mrs. Pooja Patil, AGP for the Respondent-State of Maharashtra. CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, ACJ. & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. DATE : 20th August, 2026. P.C. : 1. The Petitioner challenges the demolition order dated 29th July, 2026 passed by Respondent No.2 in relation to structures standing on Gat Nos. 221, 222 and 223, at Mouje Vaksai, Taluka Maval, District Pune. 2. Mr. Hemant Ingle, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submits that the Petitioner acquired the aforesaid lands under registered conveyances executed between 1980 and 1993. The impugned 1/5 916-WP-10811-2026.odt order concerns the structures subsequently constructed on the said lands. The Petitioner filed an Application dated 21st November 1998 to Respondent No.3, Gram Panchayat, which was considered in the meeting held on 23rd November, 1998 and Resolution No.47/2 was passed. Pursuant thereto, Respondent No.3 granted construction permission dated 18th February, 1999. Since then, the structures have been continuously assessed by Respondent No.3 and property taxes have been recovered from the Petitioner from 1998-1999 onwards. There are documents including Zone Certificate dated 29th December 2016 and correspondence relating to the electricity meter connection. The action against the Petitioner has been initiated pursuant to a motivated complaint made by Respondent No.5. The Petitioner had submitted a detailed representation placing the aforesaid facts and documents on record. However, the same has not been duly considered by Respondent Nos.1 and 2 before passing the impugned order dated 29th July, 2026. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Rohit Sakhadeo, learned counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1 and 2, vehemently submits that the impugned order is a reasoned order and has been passed after considering all relevant aspects in the matter. He, therefore, submits that no interference is warranted in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. 2/5 916-WP-10811-2026.odt 4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The Petitioner has placed on record the construction permission dated 18th February, 1999 issued by Respondent No.3. The validity of the said permission has not been dealt with in the impugned order. In these circumstances, a demolition order ought not to have been passed without first considering the legal effect of the permission granted by Respondent No.3 and the other documents relied upon by the Petitioner. 5. Mr. Sakhadeo submits that Respondent No.1 has subsequently been appointed as the Planning Authority and that the requisite permission of the Planning Authority would be necessary. We do not express any opinion on the merits of this contention. In our view, the controversy can be resolved in the following terms: (i) Since the Petitioner relies upon the permissions granted by Respondent No.3, the Petitioner is at liberty to file a regularization application or such application under the MRTP Act as may be advised, within a period of two weeks from today. The Application shall be complete in all respects and shall be accompanied by all requisite documents. 3/5 916-WP-10811-2026.odt (ii) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall consider the said Application on its own merits, after granting an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and thereafter pass a reasoned order within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the Application. (iii) The Petitioner shall not seek unnecessary adjournments and shall extend full cooperation for the expeditious disposal of the Application. 6. Until the aforesaid Application is decided and a copy of the order is served upon the Petitioner, Respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall not take any coercive action against the Petitioner and shall not demolish the structures in question. 7. We clarify that we have not expressed any opinion on the legality of the structures or as conferring any right of regularization upon the Petitioner. The competent authority shall decide the Petitioner’s Application strictly in accordance with the applicable law. 8. If, upon such consideration, Respondent No.2 finds that any part of the structure is unauthorized or ought to be demolished, 4/5 916-WP-10811-2026.odt Respondent No.2 shall be at liberty to take appropriate action after following the due procedure in law. 9. The Writ Petition is disposed off in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. [ GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. ] [ ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ] 5/5 916-WP-10811-2026.odt BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT Digitally signed by BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT Date: 2026.08.21 12:21:11 +0530