WPMS 1862/2011 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri Neeraj Garg, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.C. Bisht, the learned Brief Holder for the State and Sri Shobhit Saharia, the learned counsel for respondent no. 4. The MDDA has proposed widening of the road and the proposal has been sent to the State Government for approval. If the approval is granted, many shopkeepers /owners of the land adjacent to the road would be evicted and would have to be compensated and/or rehabilitated. The petitioner has come to this Court contending that she is a co-owner of certain property along with respondent no. 5 who is her brother and she fears that the entire compensation and/or rehabilitation, if any, would be given to respondent no. 5 by the MDDA. In this regard, the petitioner contends that civil suit is pending, in which there is an interim order in her favour restraining respondent no. 5 from alienating the property. This fact has also been brought to the knowledge of the MDDA intimating them that compensation and/or rehabilitation should not be given to respondent no. 5 alone since she is also a co- owner. It is alleged that in spite of the application filed, no action has been taken by the MDDA and there is an apprehension that the compensation and/or rehabilitation would be given directly to respondent no. 5. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court finds that the matter is premature since no formal decision has been taken by the State Government for widening of the road. It is only when the formal decision is taken by the State Government that the exercise of widening of the road will start, thereafter the suitable persons would be compensated and rehabilitated. It is at that stage the application of the petitioner would be considered. In the light of the aforesaid, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the MDDA to consider the application of the petitioner as and when the need arises. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) 07-09-2011 SP