1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3785 OF 2008 Dr. Dayasagar Baburao Javkar and others. .. petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondent. --- Mr. C.V. Thombre, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. P.P. More, AGP for respondent No.1 Mr. G.K. Naik, Advocate for respondent No.4. CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE & N.D. DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 2ND MARCH, 2010. ORAL ORDER :- 1] Apprehending forcible dispossession at the hands of Nagar Parishad, Beed, this petition has been filed objecting to the road widening from Rajuri Ves to Balbhim Chowk. Under the sanctioned development plan, the said road is of 12 meters. The petitioners apprehend that without taking recourse to the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, or the Land Acquisition Act, they would be dispossessed. 2 2] An affidavit in reply has been filed by the respondent No.4, wherein, it is pointed out that so far as the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned, they have handed over the possession for road widening under private negotiations. The possession receipts executed by the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 are placed on record, the same are taken on record and marked as "X1 and X2" for identification. The possession receipt bears the signature of petitioner Nos. 3 and 4. This fact has been suppressed by the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 in the present petition. Having agreed to hand over possession and after delivery of possession by private negotiations, this petition has been filed. Hence, there is absolutely no merit in the petition to the extent it relates to petitioner Nos. 3 and 4. To the extent of the said petitioners, the petition also suffers from Suppresio veri and Suggestio Falsi. Thus, the writ petition, to the extent of petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 deserves to be dismissed and we proceed to dismiss the same. 3] In so far as the petitioner Nos. 1 and 5 are concerned, the respondent No.4 admits that they are in possession of the property and they have not handed over possession under private negotiations. thus, it is categorically stated that the respondent 3 No.4 will proceed against the petitioner Nos. 1 and 5 in accordance with law and under the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Hence, the petition, to the extent of petitioners Nos. 1 and 5 is concerned, the same deserves to be allowed. 4] In so far as the petitioner No.2 is concerned, according to the petitioner, the said petitioner is the owner of the property abutting the road, whereas, according to the respondent No.4, he has carried out the unauthorized construction on the said property. We do not propose to go into that issue and as and when the respondent No.4 would proceed against the petitioner No.2, he may take appropriate steps, as advised under the law. 5] In the result, we dismiss the writ petition to the extent it relates to petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 and direct the petitioner Nos. 3 and 4 each, to pay cost of Rs.5,000/- to the respondent NO4. The petition, to the extent it relates to petitioner Nos. 1 and 5 is concerned, the same is allowed. The respondent No.4 shall not dispossess the petitioner Nos. 1 and 5, except after following the due process of law. 4 The petition, to the extent it relates to petitioner No.2, is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner No.2, to take appropriate steps after he is served with a notice under Section of the 45 of the M.R.T.P. Act. Writ petition is disposed of. [N.D. DESHPANDE,J.] [A.P. DESHPANDE.J.] Grt/-