1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6700 OF 2009 Shri Umraosingh Deochand Gujar age 76 years, occup. pensioner r/of House No.2443, Lane No.6, Madhavpura, Dhule, Dist. Dhule Petitioner versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, through Urban Development Department, Mantralya, Mumbai. 2. The Collector, Dhule District, Dhule. 3. The Dhule Municipal Corporation, through its Commissioner, Dhule, District Dhule. 4. The Town Planner, Dhule Municipal Corporation, Dhule, District Dhule. Respondents -------- Shri Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate, for the Petitioner. Shri V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri S.P. Shah, Advocate, for Respondent No. 3. ------- 2 Corum: Smt. Nishita Mhatre and M. T. Joshi, JJ. Date : 1st August, 2011. Oral Order 01. The petition has been placed for final hearing today, in view of the notice issued on March 5, 2010, indicating that the petition would be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 02. On 18.7.2011, an adjournment was sought on behalf of the Respondent-Corporation to file an affidavit. We had granted the adjournment and directed that the affidavit should be filed within two weeks from that date. However, till today, no affidavit has been filed. 03. The petitioner claims to be the owner of the land bearing survey No.487/2, ad-measuring 12 acres 37 gunthas situated within the limits of the Dhule Municipal Corporation. Originally, the land was in use for agriculture. However, it has been converted into Non Agricultural use by the order passed on 4.3.1964, by the Collector, Dhule. The Petitioner claims that in the Town Planning Scheme of 1987 a 30 meter wide road was depicted, passing through a portion of the land owned by the petitioner's father. This road was in addition to the area reserved for roads in the lay out plan submitted by the petitioner's father. According to the petitioner, the Respondents have constructed a road on the part earmarked for plotting in the lay out plan sanctioned in favour of the 3 petitioner's father. The petitioner claims that the land was neither acquired, nor have the petitioner or his father been paid compensation in respect of this land. 04. A notice was issued under Section 127 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act by the petitioner, on 24.2.2006, calling upon the respondents to acquire the property from the petitioner. The notice was replied by the Town Planner, indicating that a road was proposed to be constructed through survey No.487/2. The petitioner then received a communication from the Deputy Commissioner, Dhule Municipal Corporation, on 27.11.2007 indicating that the proposal No.76/99 for acquisition of land survey No. 487/2 would be acted upon in accordance with law. He approached the Commissioner, Dhule Municipal Corporation, on 24.4.2008, for acquisition of his land by private negotiations, or any other proceedings contemplated in law. The Town Planner informed him on 19.8.2008 that the proposal for acquisition could not be decided by private negotiations. 05. It appears that till today, the petitioner has not been paid compensation for the said land, as the acquisition proceedings have not commenced. 06. The learned Advocate for the petitioner pointed out that in Writ Petition No.6350 of 2008 [Rajendra Shankarrao Korte vs. The State of Maharashtra and another], the Division Bench, on 26.8.2010, dealt with the acquisition of the land adjoining the present land in 4 continuation for the construction of the same road. In similar circumstances, the Court, while considering the acquisition of land for the 100 ft. i.e. 30 meter wide road, has passed the following order. "5. Hence, whatever may be the position earlier, the respondents are directed to take necessary steps for acquisition of the land on which road of 100 feet width is constructed, which passes through Survey No.483/2 at Dhule, as expeditiously as possible and in any case, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order, and also to pay compensation to the owner of the land, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. The respondent-Corporation shall accordingly submit a proposal to the Collector, Dhule, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order." 07. Since the road, which was to be constructed and was passing through survey No. 483/2 is in continuation of the one passing through the petitioner's land, we will pass the same order, specially since there is no reply filed by the Corporation. 08. The State in its affidavit has merely indicated that this is an internal road shown in the lay out submitted by the petitioner and the petitioner has reaped the benefits of the construction of the road as the potential value of the plots would be higher because of the frontage of the road. 09. Mr. Shah the learned advocate for the Corporation attempted to distinguish the facts in the present case with those in the 5 case of Rajendra Shankarrao Korte (supra). He submitted that a proposal was submitted by the Corporation to the Collector for initiating the proceedings for acquisition of the Petitioner's land with a width of 30 metres. However this contention is not borne out from any document on record as the Corporation has chosen not to file an affidavit despite being afforded an opportunity to do so. In fact the petition was adjourned on several occasions to enable the Corporation to file its reply. Significantly, the State has not referred to this proposal at all in its affidavit. Therefore we are not inclined to accept this contention of Mr. Shah. 09. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to take necessary steps for acquisition of the land on which the road which is 30 meter wide, has been constructed and which passes through survey No.483/2 within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Dhule, as expeditiously as possible. A proposal shall be submitted by the Corporation to the Collector, Dhule, within one month from the date of receipt of this order, for acquisition of the aforesaid land. The Petitioner shall be paid compensation for the land, in accordance with law, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. 10. Petition disposed of, accordingly. (M.T. JOSHI) (SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.) pnd/wp6700.09