1 W.P. No.6830-09 mmj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6830 OF 2009 Gulab Sahadu Waghere ..Petitioner Vs. Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation & Ors. ..Respondents Shri S.S.Patwardhan for the Petitioner Shri N.V.Walawalkar Senior Counsel a/w Shri D.R.More for Respondent No.1 Smt. S.S.Bhende AGP for Respondent Nos.2 to 4 Coram: P.B.MAJMUDAR R.M.SAVANT, JJ Date: 26th July 2010 P.C. 1. This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the Notice dated 21-7-2009 issued under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by which possession of the area of 2582.93 sq.mt. out of C.S No.6365 Survey No.109 (Reservation No.77) situated at Mouje Pimpri Waghere Taluka Haveli, District Pune. The Petitioner also seeks a direction that the Respondent No.1 be directed to allow the Petitioner’s application for development of his land being survey No.109 (Reservation site No.77) and 110 2 W.P. No.6830-09 (Reservation Site No.79) situate at Mouje Pimpri Waghere Taluka Haveli, District Pune, as per the policy guide lines as contained in the Government Resolution dated 7th April, 1994 read with the relevant D.C.Rules of the Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation. The principal contention urged on behalf of the Petitioners is that by the said policy a scheme has been formulated to effectuate accommodation reservation in the development plan and, that in the light of the said scheme the Petitioner seeks the said direction against the Respondent No.1. However, as mentioned herein above, the challenge to the acquisition proceedings in so far as application of Section 17 i.e. the urgency clause is concerned the same is restricted to reservation site No.77 comprised in survey No.109 which is earmarked in the development plan of the Respondent No.1 Corporation for the purposes of “housing the dis-housed”. The invocation of Section 17 is challenged by the Petitioner as according to the Petitioner there is no urgency in effectuating the said reservation for “housing the dis-housed”. We would, therefore, firstly deal with the said contention of the Petitioner as regards the invocation of Section 17. 2 In so far as the land acquisition proceedings are concerned, it is on the subjective satisfaction of the authorities that the proceedings are initiated and proceeded with. The scope of judicial review, as is well settled by the Judgments of the Apex Court, is very limited in such matters as this Court cannot substitute its own Judgment for that of the acquisition authorities. Apart from the said position, in law in the instant case substantive material has been placed on record 3 W.P. No.6830-09 on behalf of the Municipal Corporation spelling out the urgency and hence the invocation of Section 17. It has been stated in the Affidavit in reply filed by Mr. Avinash Bhalchandra Patil, Deputy Director of Town Planning of the Respondent No.1 Corporation that reservation site Nos.77 and 79 have been reserved in the development plan for housing the dis-housed persons. It is stated that funds have been made available under the JNNURM, which is a scheme of the Central Government under which 50% of the funds of the DPR (Detail Project Report) for implementation of providing housing for the dis-housed persons are provided by the Central Government, 30% of the same by the State Government and the remaining contribution for the same is to be made by the Corporation. It is further stated in the said affidavit that the Corporation has already received a part of the said amount of Rs.56.21 crores for implementing and completing the said project and even the budgetary provisions for incurring expenses of the amount for implementing the said proposal has been made in the budget of the Municipal Corporation. It is, therefore, the case of the Corporation that in the event the funds received from the Central Government under the said JNNURM Scheme as well as the State Government is not utilized, the benefit of the said Scheme of the Central Government would be lost to the Respondent No.1 Corporation and hence the urgency in proceeding with the acquisition of the land. 3. Considering the grounds mentioned in the Affidavit in reply filed by the Respondent No.1 Corporation, we do not see any illegality in the action of the 4 W.P. No.6830-09 authorities in invocation of Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is also pertinent to note that there are no allegations of malafides against the Respondent No.1. We are also informed that the Respondent No.1 has already been handed over the possession of the land in question i.e. Site No.77 which is subject matter of the above Petition, by the State Government, though the same is sought to be disputed on behalf of the Petitioner. 4. In so far as the challenge to the acquisition on the ground that the Petitioner’s application for availing of the scheme as mentioned in Government Resolution dated 7-4-1994 which provides for implementation of accommodation reservation by owner of the land is concerned, it is required to be noted that the Corporation to whom the application was made by the Petitioner has already rejected the said application by its letter dated 10-3-2008. It is pertinent to note that the said rejection has not been challenged by the Petitioner in the above Petition. However, the Petitioner seeks to postpone the inevitable by contending that his application is as yet kept pending by the State Government. 5. Be that as it may, the Corporation in the said Affidavit in reply has cited reasons as to why the Petitioners cannot be granted the development rights as contemplated under the said Government Resolution dated 7-4-1994. It has been stated in the said Affidavit that the Corporation, if it carries out inhouse development of the reservation site No.77 and 79, then the Corporation will be in 5 W.P. No.6830-09 a position to construct about 700 tenements each of around 30 sq.mtrs.. However, if the Petitioner is allowed to do so, the Corporation would only get 10% of the area of the land and thereby only about 70 tenements of approximately of 30 sq.mtrs. It has been stated in the said Affidavit that the present need of the Corporation is to provide house to the dis-housed, to the extent of 13250 persons. If the corporation is allowed to develop the said reservation site, the 700 tenaments would go to a large extent, in the corporation fulfilling its obligation towards the dis-housed. In so far as the case of the Petitioners that the holders of the adjoin site Nos.74, 75, 76 were allowed to develop on the basis of the said Government Resolution dated 7-4-1994. It has not for us to determine as to how the development is to be carried out by the Corporation of the reservation sites as the Respondent No.1 Corporation, in our view, is the best Judge for the same, considering the funds that are available with it and also considering the public interest involved. In that view of the matter we do not find any merit in the aforesaid two contentions urged on behalf of the Petitioner. The Petition is accordingly dismissed. 6. As the application of the petitioner which was initially served on the Respondent No.1 Corporation and copy of which is served on the State Government is as yet awaiting reply from the State Government. In our view, it would be appropriate for the concerned department of the State Government to dispose of the said Application of the Petitioner within a period of 4 weeks from 6 W.P. No.6830-09 date, considering the fact that the said Application is awaiting reply from the year 2007. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)