1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.4456 of 2008 [K.M. Vyas Vs. State of Mah. & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. V.R. Mundra, Adv., for the petitioner. Mr. A.S. Fulzele, AGP for respondent nos. 1 and 3. ----- CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE AND A.H. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 14th October,2008. Heard Mr. Mundra, learned Counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner claims to be the erstwhile owner of Site Nos. 145 and 208 in the Development Plan of Municipal Council, Gondia, and the said plots were reserved for a Primary School. The plots came to be acquired by the Municipal Council through negotiations, and the petitioner has received the amount of compensation. Revised Development Plan for Gondia town was published on 29th November, 2007, and the said sites were re-numbered as Site Nos. 166 and 78. In addition, in the revised Development Plan, three other sites, namely Site Nos. 160, 95 and 99 are reserved for a Sub-station of 2 Electricity Supply Company. It is the grievance of the petitioner that the sites reserved for the primary school and as acquired from the ownership of the petitioner, have been subsequently converted into the site for a sub-station of the Electricity Supply Company by effecting the modification as provided under Section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act. The petitioner further claims that the said modification is the proposed one and while the final orders are awaited, the authorities have proceeded to complete the “Bhoomipoojan” at Site No. 145 [old] at the hands of the Minister. Hence this petition. One of the main prayers in this petition is to revert the Site No. 145 to the ownership of the petitioner. Such a relief cannot be considered, as the plots have become the property of the Municipal Council, and the petitioner has received the compensation. For other reliefs, admittedly, a Public Interest Litigation Petition has been filed by an Architect before us, and, if aggrieved by any proposed construction thereby taking away the petitioner's easementary rights on his neighbouring plot, the petitioner may move the appropriate Forum once the Municipality 3 sanctions the construction plans, and obviously after the proposed modification is approved by the State Govt. Hence petition is rejected. Judge Judge |Hedau|