1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5084 OF 2007 Murlidhar S/o Shivram Tandale Age 62 years Occupation Agril., R/o Rohatwadi Tq. Patoda, District Beed. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralya Mumbai-32 and others ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri.M.M.Avhad Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.R.P.Phatke,A.G.P.for Respondents. .... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 29TH JUNE, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner’s contention is that the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 constructed the road through his Agricultural land under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana. The petitioner states that his 2 land is not acquired, therefore, land acquisition proceeding be initiated. 3. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 filed their affidavit in reply. In para No. 5 and 14(iv) it is stated that: “5] I say and submit that the contents of para No.3 are partly true. However, it is clarified that, there was already Kaccha road since 1972. The said road was made in Dhadak Yojna i.e. in the year 1972. There was drought and for giving work to the people, the road was constructed and now there is no new road only old Kaccha road is constructed by up gradation of work and therefore, it is false that, the construction is carried out in land of the petitioner. 14] (iv) This road alignment passed through hilly area. The said road was initially constructed in the year 1972 and improved in the year 1978 in Dhadak Yojna. In the scheme (Pradhan Mantri Sadak Yojna) up gradation of existing road is sanctioned on existing road surface and no extra land is taken by the respondent No.2 in Gut No.441 of Rohatalwadi.” 4. Prima facie the respondent- Zilla Parishad states that there was Kaccha road since 1972 and 3 the said road was made in Dhadak Yojna in the year 1972. Now, some upgradation under Pradhan Mantri Sadak Yojna is to be carried out. We find that earlier road was in existence since 1972, which was leading through the property- agricultural land of the petitioner, the upgradation if any, does not change its old status. 5. In the light of the material placed before us, no interference is called for in exercise of our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner may resort to alternative remedies permissible in law. Accordingly the Writ Petition stands rejected.(See. AIR 1995 S.C.1991) Sd/- Sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] MTK