[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Nandgude Patil Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs The State Of Maharashtra Thr The ... on 16 April, 2026
Author: Milind N. Jadhav
Bench: Milind N. Jadhav
P5.WPST.10947.2026.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (ST) NO.10947 OF 2026
Nandgude Patil Developers Pvt. Ltd. .. Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Ors. .. Respondents
....................
Mr. Shriram Kulkarni a/w. Ms. Swati Sagvekar, Advocates for
Petitioner.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : APRIL 16, 2026
P.C.:
1. Not on Board. Mentioned at 05:30 p.m. by way of filing
praecipe dated 16.04.2026. Perused the praecipe.
2. Heard Mr. Kulkarni, learned Advocate for Petitioner.
3. Urgent intervention of Court is sought by mentioning the
matter at the time of rising in view of exigency involved in the matter.
4. Mr. Kulkarni would submit that Writ Petition is filed in great
hurry today itself and my attention is drawn to Exhibit-H, page No.129
which is a statutory notice issued under Rules 12(2) and 12(2)(a) of
Maharashtra Realisation of Land Revenue Rules, 1967 (for short 'the
said Rules') directing auctioning of the property as stated in the said
notice.
5. Mr. Kulkarni would draw my attention to fundamental facts
in the present case and submit that the need and necessity for
1 of 4
P5.WPST.10947.2026.doc
auctioning the subject suit property cannot arise in view of the prima
facie incorrect realisation amount which is stated in the notice itself.
He would submit that Petitioner is a Developer who was entrusted
with development of the suit property but could not fulfill his
obligations.
6. He would submit that 9 flat purchasers filed statutory
proceedings before the Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Authority (for short 'RERA') qua their respective flats in which orders
came to be passed. He would submit that in the meanwhile Petitioner
handed over the project to a second Developer namely Respondent
No.13 herein who has infact settled the proceedings with 6 out of 9 flat
purchasers who had approached RERA. He would submit that these 6
flat purchasers have given their consents and in that view of the
matter, the outstanding arrears amount reflected in the statutory
notice namely Rs.3,80,88,927/- is not the correct amount and it ought
to be much less.
7. He would submit that 3 out of the 9 flat purchasers who
have approached RERA are yet to settle with the new developer
according to his instructions. All that he would submit is that in such
facts and circumstances employing the provisions of the said Rules and
auctioning the entire larger property including land is not the correct
course of action. He would submit that since the new Developer who
2 of 4
P5.WPST.10947.2026.doc
has adopted the liability of the Petitioner is required to fructify the
same and according to his instructions, he is in the process of doing the
same also, the impugned action requires immediate interference of the
Court.
8. Be that as it may, submissions made by Mr. Kulkarni are
prima facie justified on the basis of the documents which are appended
to the Petition and therefore this Court will have to step in.
9. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, Respondent
No.2 (Appar Tahsildar, Pimpri-Chinchwad - Pune) is directed not to act
in furtherance of the impugned notice dated 08.04.2026 for
conducting the auction tomorrow, copy of which is appended at
Exhibit-H, page No.129 of the Petition.
10. In view of the above, issue notice to Respondents. Humdast
permitted.
11. In addition to Court's notice, Petitioner is directed to serve
the Respondents a copy of this order and copy of the Petition and
inform them about the next date of hearing by any permissible mode of
service and file appropriate affidavit of service with tangible proof
thereof.
12. All Respondents including private Respondents are directed
to file their Affidavit-in-Reply to the Petition and more specifically to
3 of 4
P5.WPST.10947.2026.doc
the facts which are delineated hereinabove on the submissions made
by Mr. Kulkarni within a period of two weeks from today. Affidavit-in-
Rejoinder, if any, is permitted to be filed within one week thereafter.
13. It is clarified that in the meanwhile, no coercive steps for
auctioning the property as stated in the impugned notice dated
08.04.2026 shall be taken by the Tahsildar without taking leave of the
Court.
14. Mr. Kulkarni would submit that notice of today's mentioning
was given to the Government Pleader.
15. All concerned are directed to act on a server copy of this
order downloaded from the Bombay High Court website including the
concerned Tahsildar.
16. Stand over to 7th May 2026.
17. Praecipe is disposed.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
HARSHADA SAWANT
HANUMANT Date:
SAWANT 2026.04.16
19:18:20
+0530
4 of 4
