1 rpa IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3333 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 3333 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 3333 OF 2008 Sampatrao Tukaram Uthale & Ors. .. Petitioners V/s. The Municipal Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation and Ors. .. Respondents Mr.V.A.Shastry for the Petitioners. Mr.V.A.Sonpal, AGP. Mr.R.G.Ketkar for Respondent No.1. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND CORAM : BILAL NAZKI AND S.S.SHINDE, JJ. S.S.SHINDE, JJ. S.S.SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 16TH JUNE, 2008. DATE : 16TH JUNE, 2008. DATE : 16TH JUNE, 2008. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- . The Petitioner has filed the Petition. The Petitioner wants quashing of notice dated 12th February, 2008 which is the notification under section 126 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act (M.R.T.P.Act) mainly on the ground that the alignment proposed for widening of the road is improper, as many houses will have to be demolished if the road is widened according to the alignment proposed. He submits that there was a counter proposal given by a architect of the Respondents which had granted another 2 alignment by which many houses would not be subjected to demolition. It is well settled that the question of alignment and the question which piece of land needs to be acquired for a public purpose has to be left to the experts. However, the Petitioner submits that the alignment was made only to benefit some person. Malafides could be a ground, if necessary particulars were given. The material fact as to who was likely to be affected by the present alignment have not been narrated in the Petition. Intended beneficiary is not named. No malafides are pleaded. 2. The learned counsel for the Respondents further pointed out that the alignment was proposed in regional plan initially in the year 1993. Objections were invited and the regional plan was finally notified in the year 1997 and as such even if the Respondents want to change the alignment that could not be done as the alignment has been finally decided in the master plan itself. 3. For these reasons, we do not find any merits in the Petition. The Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (BILAL NAZKI, J.) 3 (S.S.SHINDE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.) (S.S.SHINDE, J.)