1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1929 OF 2006 Chitalia Builders .....Petitioner V/s. Mumbai Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.R.D.Soni i/by A.R.Shaikh, for the petitioner. Mr.A.Y.Sakhare, Sr.Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr.Munal Cheema, for respondent No.2. Smt.Pardeshi i/by P.M.Havnur, for respondent No.4. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : JUNE 23, 2009 P.C. 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed that while carrying out the construction, respondent No.2 who is builder/developer has not provided right of way to the petitioner, though as per the building plan sanctioned by the Corporation, respondent No.2 was required to provide right of way to the petitioner while carrying out construction. Prayer (a) in the petition is to the effect that appropriate writ directions may be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing the Corporation to acquire the portion of the land for right of way and access 2 to the petitioner’s CTS No.2227 from the neighbouring CTS No.2226. Other reliefs have been prayed to the effect that respondent Nos.2 and 3 may be directed to execute the deed of right of way in favour of the petitioner. It is also prayed that respondent Nos.2 and 3 may be restrained by way of injunction not to obstruct and/or create hinderance in using the said right of way by the petitioner. 2. During the course of hearing, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the Corporation, submitted that Corporation has now initiated proceedings for acquiring the area in question for providing right of way to the petitioner. Out attention has been drawn to the affidavit-in- reply filed by one Babasaheb Vaijanath Shinde, Executive Engineer of the Corporation. In Para 4(h) of the said affidavit-in-reply, it has been averred that Municipal Commissioner has passed the order to initiate acquisition proceedings for incepting new road line under Section 291 of the M.M.C. Act, providing access to the petitioner i.e. CTS No.2227 and the petitioner to bear costs of acquisition. The learned Senior counsel for the Corporation submitted that said proceedings shall be completed expeditiously and proposal is required to be sent to the Collector for the purpose of acquisition of the land in question. 3. We accept the statement made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Corporation that for providing right of way to 3 the petitioner, proceedings would be initiated expeditiously. If any proposal is received, the Collector may expeditiously dealt with the same in accordance with law and ultimately if sanction is given for acquiring the land under the Land Acquisition Act, we hope that appropriate Notification under Section 4 of the Act, may be issued expeditiously and within a period of three months from today. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the issues in question as to whether in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court can issue mandamus asking the public authority to acquire a particular land. However, since a statement is made on behalf of the Corporation that the Corporation is going to acquire the land, that the aforesaid direction has been given to expedite proceedings under Land Acquisition Act. Needless to say that the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act should be initiated as per law. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is not pressing other prayers which is regarding executing the documents etc., by the respondent Nos.2 & 3 and regarding the petitioner’s easmentary rights in the present proceedings. It is clarified that in case the Corporation is of the opinion that any other regulations have been violated and construction has not been made according to the sanctioned plan, it is for the Corporation to take appropriate action in accordance 4 with law. 5. We may also point out that at the time of sanctioning building plan, respondent No.2 has given undertaking to the Corporation that he will provide appropriate way to the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that undertaking was given at the time of getting occupation certificate. In our view, ultimately, when now the Corporation has decided to acquire the land for right of way, the land acquisition proceedings should be expedited as indicated in this order. 6. Subject to what is stated hereinabove, the petition is disposed of. Rule discharged. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) (P.B.MAJMUDAR, J.)