1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2063 OF 1998 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's Orders Mr. M.K.Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. G.K.Naik Thigle, Advocate for Resp.no. 5. Mr. S.R.Bharad, Advocate holding for Mr. V.D.Salunke, Advocate for respondent no.7. ............................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE: 03/08/2010 PER COURT : 1. The petitioners have filed the present petition challenging the Notification passed by the State Govt., thereby removing the reservation on S.Nos. 166,167,168 and 182, thereby making a modification in the development plan and changing the reservation which was earlier for 15 M. wide road and making it a residential zone. 2. It is the contention of the petitioners that the road in question was necessary for the convenience of the residents residing in that area. The Municipal Corporation have also joined the issue with the petitioners and has stated that the road in question was necessary. 3. In the affidavit in reply filed on behalf 2 of respondent – State, the grounds on which the impugned notification is supported is that there already exists 2 roads and further that though the land was reserved for public road, the Municipal Corporation has not taken any steps to acquire the land. 4. Mr. Thigle, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Municipal Council on the instructions of the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council, who is personally present in the Court, makes a categorical statement that the land in question is required for the road and that the Municipal Council has necessary funds for acquiring the land. 5. It is pertinent to note that there has been an interim order passed by this Court thereby directing not to create third party interest on the 15 Meter road. We find that the stand taken by the State Govt. that the Municipal Council does not have funds, is not correct. We see no reason for not accepting the statement made on behalf of the Chief Officer of the Municipal Council that the Municipal Council does have requisite funds and is willing to acquire the land. The Development Plan has been prepared by the Municipal Council in consultation with the Town Planning 3 department. The said authorities are the best Judge to consider as to whether the roads are required for the citizens in the city or not. The Development Plan which has been prepared by the experts, can not be cursorily interfered with by the State Govt. and that too on affirming reasons. 6. We have perused the Map, which is at page no. 155 of the paper book, which would show that the reservation which has been provided for the road is provided taking into consideration the needs of the locality. We have also perused the photographs which are placed on record, which would show that the said road is already partly constructed by the Municipal Council. 7. In that view of the matter, we are inclined to allow the petition in terms of prayer clause ‘ E ’. The Chief Officer of the Municipal Council who is present in the Court states that the necessary steps would be taken by the Municipal Council as early as possible. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA ] [ B.R. GAVAI ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 2063.98