1 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. 7635 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 7635 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO. 7635 OF 2007 Satish Anand Singh & Ors. .. Petitioners. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. S.S. Patwardhan for Petitioners. Mr. S.M. Gorwadkar for R. No. 2. Mr. V.P. Malvankar, AGP., for Respondent no.1. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE: 29th JANUARY, 2008. DATE: 29th JANUARY, 2008. DATE: 29th JANUARY, 2008. P.C. . Heard. 2. The petitioners have approached this Court impugning the decision of the respondents in respect of the road widening as proposed in the revised development plan of the Pune Municipal Corporation from Harris Bridge upto the boundary of Khadki Cantonment at Bopadi and to quash the said notification issued by the Urban Development Department, State of Maharashtra 2 approving the modification of the development plan as proposed by the Pune Municipal Corporation in exercise of the powers conferred under sub-section (2) of Section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. 3. The main contention appears to be that the impugned notification was issued contrary to the revised development plan of the Municipal Corporation in so far it relates to the width of the road which is extended by five meters than the proposed road. Secondly, that the decision taken by the State is arbitrary in nature as it affects the petitioners as they will be dislocated and thirdly there is a proposal to construct a fly-over and, therefore, the widening of the road could not serve any public purpose. 4. In the affidavit in reply filed by the respondents they have stated that the proposal submitted by the Pune Municipal Corporation under Section 37 of the MRTP Act,1966 for shifting the alignment of 42 meters vide Development Plan towards East was considered by the State Government in accordance with the resolution passed by the General Body of the Pune Municipal Corporation and the same has been approved and notified. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Municipal Corporation submits that the width of the road which is proposed would be in accordance with the development plan of 3 which modification was sought under Section 37 of the MRTP Act, 1966. It is, therefore, submitted that in so far as the rehabilitation is concerned, the petitioners have a remedy to claim compensation if their land is affected by the road widening project. In so far as the rehabilitation is concerned, it depends on the policy of the Municipal Corporation and under such a policy the petitioners can avail of the benefit. Thirdly, in reply to the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that there is a proposal to construct a fly-over, it is pointed out that there is no such proposal moved by the Municipal Corporation in the matter. The communication which is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners relates to a resolution passed by the City Development Committee of the Corporation on 13.7.2007 in respect of the proposal received from two persons which has been forwarded to the Municipal Commissioner for his opinion and, therefore, it cannot be said that the widening of the road is not justified. 5. In our view, this is a matter of policy and the Planning Authority has got the approval from the State Government for widening of the Road. The project involves the budget of several crores of rupees. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. The petitioners can very well take recourse to the remedy available under the MRTP Act, 1966. We make it clear that if there is a policy for 4 rehabilitation of the persons affected by the road widening, then there is no reason why the Respondent Corporation should not accommodate the petitioners under the said scheme. We, therefore, dispose of the petition by accepting the statement of the learned counsel for the Municipal Corporation that they would not go beyond the revised development plan which has been sanctioned by the State Government in so far as the width of the road is concerned. 6. The Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.)