1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2477 OF 2009 Tukaram s/o Wamanrao Jogdand, Age : 44 years, Occup:Agril., r/o Dapka Raja, Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded ..PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Collector, Nanded 2. The Executive Engineer, Nanded Minor Irrigation Division, Vishnubhavan, Jangamwadi, Nanded 3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Minor Irrigation Sub-Division No.2, Mukhed, Dist. Nanded 4. Sectional Engineer, Minor Irrigation, Dapka Raja, Tq. Mukhed, Dist. Nanded ..RESPONDENTS Mr K.T. Shirurkar,Advocate holding for Mr Satish S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioiner; Mr N.N. jadhav, A.G.P. for respondents. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND NARESH H. PATIL, JJ DATE : 18th September 2009 2 ORAL JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] 1. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission. 2. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of prohibition directing the respondents to be prohibited from preparing/constructing diversion road i.e. Dapka Raja to Sawargaon road through the land at Gut No.92, situated at Dapka Raja, Taluka Mukhed, District Nanded, owned and possessed by the petitioner without following the procedure under the Land Acquisition Act. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of necessary writ directing the respondents to divert the said proposed road. 3. According to us the relief which the petitioner has sought for at prayer clause (C) of issuance of a writ directing the respondents to divert the road is not maintainable in the light of the fact that the respondents are the best authorities in respect of the construction of the road. The respondents in their affidavit in reply have clearly stated that the diversion of the road would entail further expenses. In any event, the authorities are the best 3 judges as to the direction of the road. In respect of the prayer of the petitioner not to be dispossessed except in accordance with law, the respondents in their affidavit in reply at paragraph 7 have stated "I say and submit that, the contents of the petition that, the respondents are constructing the proposed road without his consent and without following procedure under the Land Acquisition Act is not true and correct and it is denied." Shri Jadhav, learned A.G.P. appearing on behalf of respondents states on instructions that in any event the respondents would not deprive the petitioner of his possession except in accordance with law. We accept the aforesaid statement as an undertaking to the Court. In the light of the said statement, the relief which the petitioner has prayed for at prayer clause (B) to the petition, that the petitioner should not be deprived of the possession of the land except in accordance with law, stands granted. 4. We, therefore, allow this petition to the limited extent by accepting the statement of the learned A.G.P. that the petitioner would not be deprived of the possession of his land except in accordance with law. 4 5. Rule is thus made absolute based on the aforesaid statement with no order as to costs. ( NARESH H. PATIL ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE amj/wp2477.09 5