Jagannath Sadashiv Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Ld. Director, Town Planning and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Jagannath Sadashiv Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Ld. Director, Town Planning and Anr. — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ Petition allowed; impugned judgment and order dated 5.12.2019 in Appeal No.3/2019 quashed and set aside; Petitioners at liberty to file fresh proposal under Section 53(3) of MRTP Act within four weeks, with Respondent No.2 to communicate defects within four weeks thereafter and finally decide within three months; proposal not to be declined consideration for want of no-objection certificate from co-owner Eknath Rangrao Patil.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioners' proposal relating to construction already raised on City Survey Nos.2411 & 2087 ought to have been considered in terms of Section 53(3) of the MRTP Act (rather than under Section 44 as a fresh development), and whether the impugned order dated 5.12.2019 rejecting it should be quashed.

Court's answer

Since the Petitioners had already raised construction over the suit property, their proposal ought to have been considered in terms of Section 53(3) of the MRTP Act; the impugned order instead considered it under Section 44 as if they were seeking permission for a fresh development.

Ratio / Principle

In that view of the matter, the impugned order is quashed and set aside.

Key takeaways

The Petitioners shall be at liberty to file a fresh proposal in terms of Section 53(3) of MRTP Act within a period of four weeks from today.ratio¶9
Once such proposal is filed, Respondent No.2 shall communicate defect, if any, within a period of four weeks thereafter.ratio¶9
Respondent No.2 shall finally decide the Petitioners' proposal within a period of three months from the date of the order.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Circuit Bench at Kolhapur), Writ Petition No.1768 of 2024, decided 5th December 2025 (S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J.) — Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966, Sections 35(1), 44, 53 and 53(3) — Petitioners, who had already raised construction on City Survey Nos.2411 & 2087, were served notices under Section 35(1) by Respondent No.2 Municipal Council, Islampur; their proposal under Section 53 was rejected (communication dated 12th April 2019) on the ground that construction had already been raised, and their appeal was rejected by Respondent No.1 Director of Town Planning, Maharashtra State, Pune in Appeal No.3/2019 by order dated 5.12.2019 — Held: since the Petitioners had already raised construction, their proposal ought to have been considered in terms of Section 53(3) of the MRTP Act and not under Section 44 as if seeking permission for a fresh development; accordingly the impugned order was quashed and set aside — Petitioners permitted to file a fresh proposal under Section 53(3) within four weeks; Respondent No.2 to communicate defects within four weeks thereafter and to finally decide within three months — Clarified that the proposal shall not be declined consideration for want of a no-objection certificate from co-owner Eknath Rangrao Patil — Writ Petition allowed.

904-wp-1768-2024.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.1768 OF 2024

Jagannath sadashiv Patil & Ors. …..Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. …..Respondents

Mr. Umesh Hanmantrao Pawar, for the Petitioners. Mr. Rupesh Bobade, for Respondents. Mr. J. P. Patil, AGP for Respondent-State.

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J. DATED : 5^th December 2025

P.C.:-

The present Petition is filed seeking following prayer:

“(b) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to quash and set aside the Impugned judgment and order dated 5.12.2019 passed by Respondent No.1 Ld. Director, Town Planning, Maharashtra State, Pune in Appeal No.3/2019 and be kindly allow the Petitioners proposal dated 22.3.2018 submitted before the Respondent No.2 Municipal Council Islampur.”

The Petitioners were served with notices dated 8^th August 2016

& 26^th August 2016 under Section 35(1) of Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short “MRPT Act”) by Respondent No.2 Municipal Council, Islampur. The Petitioners submitted

1/3

Suresh

904-wp-1768-2024.doc

Application/proposal under Section 53 of MRTP Act along with documents and sought construction permission in respect of construction carried out on City Survey No.2411 & 2087.

On 12th April 2019, Respondent No.2 communicated that Petitioners’ proposal had been rejected on ground that they had already raised construction. The Petitioners thereafter filed an Appeal before Director of Town Planning, Maharashtra State, Pune against order of Respondent No.2. However, same is also rejected.

On perusal of impugned order shows that Petitioners’ proposal was considered under Section 44 of the MRTP Act, as if they were seeking permission for a fresh development.

In fact, Petitioners had already raised construction over suit property. Therefore, their proposal ought to have been considered in terms of Section 53(3) of the MRTP Act.

Mr. Umesh Pawar, learned counsel appearing for Petitioners, on instructions, submit that Petitioners would file a fresh proposal along with necessary documents for regularization of construction already made.

2/3

Suresh

904-wp-1768-2024.doc

Mr. Rupesh Bobade, learned counsel appearing for Respondent-

Municipal Council, on instructions, submits that if such a proposal is made, it would be considered in accordance with law.

In that view of matter, impugned order is quashed and set aside.

The Petitioners shall be at liberty to file a fresh proposal in terms of Section 53(3) of MRTP Act, within a period of four weeks from today. Once such proposal is filed, Respondent No.2 shall communicate defect, if any, within a period of four weeks thereafter

and shall finally decide proposal of Petitioners within period of three months from date of this order.

It is clarified that proposal of Petitioners shall not be declined consideration on the ground that Petitioner could not bring a no objection certificate from co-owner namely Eknath Rangrao Patil.

Writ Petition is allowed in aforesaid terms.

(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.)

3/3

Suresh