-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2645 OF 2009 Sunil Kantilal Sancheti and another ... Petitioners versus The Special Land Acquisition Officer and others ... Respondents Mr. S.V. Sadavarte for the petitioners. Smt. S.S. Bhende, AGP, for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Bharat Mehta for respondent No.5. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.M. SAVANT, JJ. DATE: JUNE 21, 2010. P.C. Rule. Learned AGP appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 waive service of Rule. With the consent of parties, Rule is made returnable forthwith and heard. 2. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the notice dated 8th May, 2008 issued under Section 17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity sake hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). 3. The petitioners claim to have a structure in land bearing S. No. 131/2A/2 situated at Waraje, Pune. The said structure bears House No. 340/2. -2- The notice in question is in respect of S. No. 139. However, since the petitioners’ structure appears to be on the boundary of the said two survey numbers, the petitioners have been issued the said notice. Suffice it to say that in the structure in question, the petitioners have their shop and are residing on the first floor of the said structure with the staircase leading to the first floor being by the side of the shop facing the road. The acquisition proceedings have been initiated for widening the D.P. Road leading to N.H. 4. The said notification has been challenged, inter alia, on various grounds in the petition but primarily on the ground that though the petitioners’ structure is situate in S. No. 139, by a notice issued pertaining to S. No. 131/2A/2 possession is sought to be taken on an urgent basis from the petitioners. 4. The above petition was heard from time to time by us. During the course of the said hearings, with a view to resolve the issue so as to meet the requirements of the Corporation to widen the D.P. Road as also to see to it that the petitioners structure remains habitable, we had asked the learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5-Corporation to take instructions. Upon taking instructions from one Mr. Viraj Borale, Junior Engineer, who is present in Court, Shri Mehta, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 , stated that since the process relating to the acquisition of the land in the said area would take some time, demolition in question in respect of the petitioners’ structure would not be carried out in the immediate future but would take some time. Learned -3- counsel further submitted that in the event the staircase leading to the first floor of the structure is to be demolished for the purpose of road widening and question arises as to whether the structure in question remains habitable for the petitioners, the petitioners would be entitled to apply under the rehabilitation policy of respondent No.5 Corporation as contained in the Resolution dated 19th March, 2008 as amended. A copy of the said resolution containing the said policy is taken on record and marked “X” for identification. 5. In the light of the said statement made by Shri Mehta, Shri Sadavarte, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, on instructions from the concerned petitioner who is present in Court, states that he would not press the petition in so far as the challenge to the acquisition is concerned. In the light of the above, therefore, we dispose of the petition by the following order. ORDER (i) The challenge raised by the petitioners in the above petition is given up by the petitioners, on instructions of the concerned petitioner, who is personally present in Court. (ii) As and when the demolition is carried out and if the staircase in question is demolished so as to make the structure of the petitioners inhabitable, the petitioners would be entitled to apply under the policy as referred to above. (iii) Before carrying out demolition, the petitioners shall be given a notice of -4- at least a month and on such notice being received, the petitioners would be entitled to make an application to respondent No.5 for availing of the policy as contained in the Resolution mentioned above, provided that the structure of the petitioners has become inhabitable. (iv) If such an application is received from the petitioners, the respondent No.5 would take an appropriate decision on the same within a period of two weeks of receipt of the same and communicate its decision to the petitioners. (v) The benefit of the said policy shall be given in the same manner and to the same extent as has been given by the Corporation to others. Rule is accordingly made absolute to the aforesaid extent, with parties to bear their own costs. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.M. SAVANT, J.