1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3721 OF 2009 Dilip Champalal Jain (Mugdia), Age-51 years, Occu-Business and Joint Secretary, Shri.Vardhman Shwetamber Sthanakwasi Jain Shrawak Sangh, Kumbharwada, Aurangabad R/o.Chelipura, Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, and others RESPONDENTS Mr.D.P.Palodkar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.N.B.Khadare, learned Government Pleader for respondent no.1 and 2. (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 16/09/2009 PER COURT : 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents not to take any further action for construction of road on the property of the petitioner and also prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to acquire the land of the petitioner and pay him compensation and till 2 then the respondents be restrained from taking any adverse action in respect of the property of the petitioner. 2. It appears that the petitioner has filed this petition taking exception to the road widening activities undertaken by the respondent. The petitioner claims that an area, belonging to him, admeasuring 48000 Sq.ft. is being affected on account of the road widening. 3. Notice being served on the respondents, the respondents have filed their affidavit in reply. In the affidavit in reply, it is stated that the road from Aurangabad to Jalna has been declared as a State Highway No.6 way back in the year 1967 and as per the provisions of The Bombay Highway Act Manual Line width is 30 meters (100 feets) i.e. 15 meters from the center of road from both sides. It is further stated that at para no.6 and 7 it is stated that the major work of the construction of the road is already over and only minor work i.e. building of the gutter and lying down the water supply line remains. It is stated that the petitioner has no concern as far as the area on which the road is being constructed. 4. According to us, this petition raises several disputed questions apart from the fact that the writ can not be issued to the respondents to initiate or acquire the land of the petitioner. The petitioner has an alternate remedy available in law for seeking compensation if the land of the petitioner is being used for the purpose of road widening. In 3 the light of that therefore we are not incline to entertain this petition and this petition is therefore summarily dismissed relegating the petitioner to avail the remedies available to the petitioner in Law. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/SEP 2009/wp3721-09