1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 342 OF 2009 Osian’s-Connoisseurs of Art Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. .. Petitioners Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr. . Respondents -- Shri Milind Sathe, Sr. Counsel, with Ms Renu Parekh, Ms Rajlaxmy Mohandas and Shri Sangeet Rai i/by M/s. ALMT Legal for the Petitioners. Mrs. Geeta Jogalekar for BMC. Shri D.A. Nalawade, GP for State. -- CORAM : SWATANTER KUMAR, C.J. & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J DATED : 8TH JUNE, 2009. P.C. This is a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the impugned notice dated 29th January, 2009 and further that the Respondents be restrained from taking any action in relation to the property in question. Affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the Respondent-Corporation has been filed. In the said reply, it has been stated in paragraph 3, at Page 113, as under:- 2 “3. I say that I am filing the present affidavit in pursuant to the direction given by this Hon’ble Court dated 1.4.2009. I say that as stated in the earlier affidavit that the Respondents herein have taken over the set back portion of six properties on East side and three properties on West side situated at Dadasaheb Bhadkarmkar Marg, when the owners thereof came forward for redevelopment. I say that when the owners/developers will come forward to redevelop/repairs amounting to redevelopment of their properties affected by sanctioned R.L. Of 120 ft. wide of Dr. Dadasaheb Bhadkamkar Marg, Mumbai -4, like that of petitioners herein, the Respondent Corporation will insist on handing over the set back land to Corporation and only thereafter the Corporation will process the proposal for the redevelopment of their properties.” 2. The contention raised before us is that though the Petitioner had given an undertaking to the Corporation to hand over the setback area required by the Corporation for widening the road in consonance with the road map which had been granted way back in 1967, the Corporation had not taken any step to ensure widening of the road and no fruitful purpose has been achieved by the Petitioner by surrendering the land. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation refers to the affidavit filed by the Corporation as well as seeks instructions from the person appearing in Court by names Shri 3 Rajesh Muley, Assistant Engineer (Maintenance), Shri S.T. Yamgar, Assistant Engineer, Building and Proposal Department, and Shri S.C. Shintre, Executive Engineer, Building Proposal, City-I, and states that the Corporation has made proposal for widening of the road and would be taking effective steps for the same in consonance with the road line declared by the Corporation. 4. In view of the above circumstances, we do not see any reason to interfere in the present Writ Petition. It is undisputed fact that the said setback property belongs to the Petitioner and the Petitioner would have to hand over the said set back area required by the Corporation as per the condition imposed and accepted by it. He has taken advantage of the said condition and had given an undertaking to the Corporation which is in force. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in the Petition and direct that the Petitioner should hand over the setback portion to the Corporation within a period of four weeks from today, failing which, the Corporation shall be free to take steps expeditiously in accordance with law. 4 5. With the above directions, the Petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. CHIEF JUSTICE S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J