1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5037 of 2009 with CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1337 OF 2009 Sopan Maruti Mhetre and Ors. ..... Petitioners V/s. Secretary to the Government, Ministry of Urban Development and Public Health Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.N.V.Vechalekar, for the petitioners. Smt.S.S.Bhende, AGP, for respondent No.1. Mr.D.R.More, for respondent No.2. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 29th June, 2010 P.C. 1. The principal grievance of the petitioner in the above petition is that the respondent No.2 Corporation is not abiding by the sanctioned development plan in constructing the DP Road in so far as Gat No.170 of Village Talwade, is concerned. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.2 is deviating from the alignment as contained in the said sanctioned final development plan. 2. On behalf of respondent No.2, affidavit-in-reply has been filed by Mr.Avinash B. Patil, working in the Town Planning Department of 2 respondent No.2. In para No.4 of the affidavit in an unnumbered sub- para therein, it has been averred to the following effect : - “I say that the Corporation has been implementing the said proposal of development of 24 meter side road at Gat No. 170 at Village Talawade strictly as per the sanctioned development plan and has not deviated from the said plan while demarcating this road actually at the site”. 3. It has also been averred in Para No.7 unnumbered sub para 2 therein, to the following effect : - “I say that in fact and in reality considering the fact that the alignment is modified while sanctioning by the Government, the petitioners properties are affected to the extent of hardly ten percent to twenty percent and not to the extent of 80% to 100% as per earlier alignment in the draft development plan. 4. The same has been reiterated in Para No.5, which reads as under : - “It is submitted on behalf of the Corporation that the work is undergoing strictly as per the sanctioned development plan (with modification), therefore, your above referred Notice is unwarranted and unjustified which needs to be withdrawn with immediate effect. It is also to be noted that the Collector has also declared an Award in respect of 24 meter wide road on 30th April, 2008 and thus, major portion of road is acquired for development accordingly. (The map showing the status of land acquired is enclosed as Ex.A.” 5. In fact, it would be pertinent to note that the notice sent by 3 the Advocate of the petitioner to the respondent No.2, alleging contempt, the same was replied to by the respondent No.2 and it has been mentioned in the said reply, as follows : “It submitted on behalf of the Corporation that the work is undergoing strictly as per the sanctioned Development plan (with modification) and therefore, your above referred notice is unwarranted and unjustified which needs to be withdrawn with immediate effect. It is submitted that the work undertaken by the Corporation is strictly as per law, no question of contempt ever arises and therefore, the averments regarding the alleged contempt by PCMC or its officers are not tenable and the same should be withdrawn with immediate effect” 6. In the light of the statements made in the said affidavit, in our view, the grievance of the petitioner does not survive. The petition is therefore, disposed of by accepting the statements reproduced hereinabove. We hope and trust that the construction of the road in question would be carried out in terms of the sanctioned plan. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 7. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, civil application No.1337 of 2009 does not survive and the same is accordingly disposed of. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )