-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 31 OF 2008 Vinod Ghedia ).. Petitioner Versus Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and others ).. Respondents Petitioner present in person. Mr. D.H. Mehta a/w. Mr. C.S. Balsara and Mr. N.M. Shah for Respondent Nos.4 to 9. Mrs. P.A. Purandare for the BMC. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & V.M . KANADE, J. DATE: JUNE, 05, 2008. P.C. In this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner has made two prayers. Firstly, by exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court should call for the record and proceedings of Civil Suit No.2838 of 2006 and should quash the orders passed therein. Secondly, that a direction be issued to the Corporation directing them to forthwith implement the sanctioned development plan and construct the D.P. Road delineated on plans Exhibit A, B and C filed by the Petitioner to this Writ Petition. According -2- to the Petitioner, this road is not being constructed and the public is being put to great inconvenience. The learned Counsel appearing for the Corporation submits that they have taken possession of the land and would be proceeding in accordance with law for developing the area in accordance with the sanctioned plans. 2. However, the learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.4 to 9 submits that the possession of the land has not been taken and even from the document Exhibit “I” to the Writ Petition, it is clear that the possession of the limited area was taken. It is also recorded that they have refused to hand over the possession. It is further stated that they have challenged the acquisition proceedings on different grounds and the Suit is pending before the City Civil Court. 3. In the circumstances afore-noticed, we are unable to entertain much less to grant the prayers of the Petitioner in regard to clause (a) of the prayer clause. The matter is pending before the Civil Court. Parties are free to argue their rights before the Court of competent jurisdiction. We also grant liberty to the Petitioner to move the Civil Court for appropriate orders, if he is so advised. We have no hesitation in observing that as the road is to be constructed for public -3- convenience, which is a matter of some urgency, the Civil Court should deal with the matter expeditiously without any undue delay. 4. As far as other prayer is concerned, the Suit pending before the Civil Court is obviously likely to have some bearing on the matter. According to the Corporation, they have taken possession and they would proceed in accordance with law to implement the development plan vide Exhibits “A”, “B” and “C”. In view of this statement, we do not find any reason to issue further directions to the Corporation and the Corporation is expected to abide by the statements and the directions of this Court. This observation, however, is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Respondents who states that they have filed the above Suit which is pending before the Court of competent jurisdiction. Order accordingly. No order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE V.M. KANADE, J.