(1) WP. 481.2006 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 481 OF 2006 1. Sow. Ratnabai w/o Damodhar More, Age : 61 years, Occu.: Household and Agriculture, resident of 517, Cantonment, Chhavani, Aurangabad 2. Rajesh S/o Damodhar More Age 38 years, Occu.: Business, R/o. 517, Cantonment, Chhavani, Aurangabad 3. Ravindra S/o Damodhar More, Age : 33 years, Occu.: Business, R/o. 517, Cantonment, Chhavani, Aurangabad 4. Sanjay S/o Damodhar More, Age : 32 years, Occu.: Business, R/o. 517, Cantonment, Chhavani, Aurangabad PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra Copy to be served on the Government Pleader, High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad 2. The District Collector, Aurangabad 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (Special Category) Aurangabad 4. The Municipal Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad RESPONDENTS (2) WP. 481.2006 ..... Mr. A.B. Kale, Advocate h/f. Mr. N.K. Kakade, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.V. Kurundkar, Addl. G.P. for the Respondent-State. Smt. Manjusha Deshpande, Advocate for the respondent no.4 ..... CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGEMNT : 8TH JUNE, 2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT : 16TH JUNE, 2011 JUDGMENT (PER - M.T. JOSHI, J.):- 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. 2. By the present Writ Petition, the petitioners seek a direction to the respondents to pay compensation amount for the land acquired by the respondent no.4-Municipal Corporation admeasuring 843.75 Sq. Mtrs. for the purposes of development plan road which was 15 M in width. 3. 1312.65 Sq. Mtrs. of land from the petitioners C.T.S. no. 16031/1/34 was taken in possession by respondent no.4-Municipal Corporation (3) WP. 481.2006 without any acquisition proceedings on 20.9.1999. Thereupon the petitioners filed Writ Petition bearing no. 3112 of 2002 in this Court, wherein the authorities concerned were directed to initiate the execution proceedings and to pay the compensation within a stipulated period. Accordingly, respondent no.3 Special Land Acquisition Officer vide award dated 17.6.2004 granted compensation of Rs.17,36,580/- regarding only 468.90 Sq.Mtr. @ 2800/- per Sq. Mtr. 4. The Special Land Acquisition Officer denied compensation for rest of the acquired land on the ground that after taking possession of the area by Municipal Corporation, the petitioners have developed eight row houses and have considered the road developed by the Municipal Corporation while selling those row houses. The next of the reasoning of the Special Land Acquisition Officer was that had the petitioners developed the plot as per the building Development Control Rules, they were required to keep 7.50 M wide road and, therefore, they were entitled to receive a nominal compensation of Rs.1/- as per the relevant Development Control Rules for keeping the said layout road. The petitioners have challenged (4) WP. 481.2006 these reasons and claimed that they are entitled for compensation for the entire acquired land. 5. The learned Addl. Govt. Pleader and the learned counsel for the respondent no.4-Municipal Corporation before us supported the reasoning given by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, thus, submitted that the petitioners were supposed to make provision of 7.50 M wide road for access to the remaining portion of the property, out of the acquired portion for which the petitioners were eligible merely for nominal compensation of Rs.1/-. The relevant Development Control Rules admittedly provide for keeping such a road of 7.50 M as and when such property is developed. 6. Reliance is also placed in a circular dated 21.4.1999 issued by the Director of Town Planning, Pune, which inter alia provides that at the time of considering the market rate for the land acquired for the purposes of widening of the development plan road, the owner would be entitled only for the additional area to be acquired, as the owner would be benefited by the widening of the road. (5) WP. 481.2006 7. In the present case, however, we are not concerned with any widening of the road but only with the acquisition of the land for development plan road admeasuring 15 M in width. The Special Land Acquisition Officer as well as the respondents have placed reliance on the Development Control Rules notionally i.e. as and when the petitioners would have developed the property they would have to leave a space for road, which would be 7.50 M in width. There is no provision of such notional calculation as has been done by the Special Land Acquisition Officer. One does not know in what way the petitioners would have developed their property had the land not been acquired for the development plan road. 8. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioners in "Pt. Chet Ram Vashist (dead) by LRs. v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi" reported in AIR 1995 SC 430 and "State of Maharashtra Vs. Bhimashankar Sidramappa Chippa, Partner of M/s. Umashankar Industries" reported in 2009 (5) AIR BOM R 670, however, lays down the ratio regarding the vesting of open space for park from the sanctioned lay (6) WP. 481.2006 out to the planning authority free of cost, is irrelevant in the present dispute since we are dealing with a road. 9. In the circumstances, the Petition will have to be allowed. The respondents are directed to pay compensation for the remaining land admeasuring 843.75 Sq.Mtr. as per the computation made earlier by the respondent no.3 Special Land Acquisition Officer. For rest of the land for which compensation is already paid. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the above terms. Sd/- Sd/- [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.] arp