1 WP 416 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.416 of 2009 St.Paul’s Malayalam Parish, Pune & ors ..... Petitioners V/s. Secretary to the Govt, Urban Development and Public Health Dept and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr. N. V. Vechalekar, for the petitioners. Shri Sudhir Prabhu, for respondent nos 3 and 4. Mr A.B.Vagyani,AGP, for respondent nos 1,2 ,5 to 7. Shri Vinod Jadhav i/b Mr Vijay Patil, for respondent no.8. CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 29th JULY, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The Principal ground on which the above petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is that respondent no.3 – Municipal Corporation is not constructing the D.P. Road as per the final sanctioned Plan of the area in question covering the village Rahatani, which is sanctioned by the State Government in the year 1995. In the context of the challenge raised in that petition, we had directed the learned counsel for respondent no.3 by our previous order to file an affidavit of a responsible officer as regards the alignment of the D.P. Road. 2 WP 416 of 2009 3. In terms of our direction, learned counsel for respondent no.3 has tendered an affidavit of one Avinash Bhalchandra Patil, Deputy Director Town Planning of respondent no.3, wherein paragraph 3 reads as follows: “3. As mentioned in above paras the 1995 Development Plan of PCNTDA is applicable for village Rahatani, and for village Chinchwad the 1995 Development Plan of PCMC is made applicable. I say that village Rahatani is included in PCMC area in 1997 and therefore PCMC became the Planning and Implementing Authority for village Rahatani on 1997 onwards. There is a river Pawna in between these two villages which are governed by two separate Development Plans and PCMC has proposed to construct a bridge on river Pawna to connect Chinchwad and Rahatani area. In Chinchwad area, PCMC has made the road as per its 1995 Development Plan and the work of the bridge is being undertaken. The proposed 45 meter Development Plan road at village Rahatani affecting the suit property as shown in the Development plan (Part copy of which is annexed herewith) is an approach to the proposed bridge on river Pawna. And therefore I say that the acquisition proposal made by these respondents is as per the said sanctioned Development Plan, and the Corporation will develop the 45 meter road in accordance with the said development plan. I say that the acquisition of the land in survey nos 96,97 and 99 of village Rahatani for the 45 meters wide road and the construction of the 45 meters wide road will be in accordance with the sanction Development Plan sanctioned by the State government on 15.11.1995.” 4. In the light of the averments made in paragraph 3 of the 3 WP 416 of 2009 affidavit, we do not see any reason to keep this writ petition pending and hence by accepting the statements made in paragraph 3 that the road in question would be constructed as per the sanctioned Plan, we dispose of the above writ petition. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )