1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4274 OF 2008 The Union of India, Through Divisional Railway Manager, South Central Railway, Nanded Division, Nanded, Represented through The Assistant Divisional Engineer, (Special Works), South Central Railway, Railway Station, Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through The Principal Secretary, Department of Municipal Administration, Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, 2) The Divisional Commissioner, Near Collector Office, Aurangabad, 3) The Collector, Collector Office, Aurangabad, 4) The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, 5) The Regional Town Planning Officer, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad, 6) The Additional City Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS. 2 ... Shri.M.N. Navandar Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.K.B. Choudhari, A.G.P. for Resp.Nos.1 to 3 Smt. Manjusha Deshpande Advocate for Respondent No.4 to 6. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 22ND MARCH, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner Shri Navandar submitted that the Respondent Municipal Corporation is initiating forceful action for acquisition of Petitioner's land from C.T.S. No.18417/P admeasuring 1169 sq. meters and 500 sq. meters (total 1669 sq. meters) for the purposes of widening of 40 meters road in front of the Railway Station, Aurangabad. The Petitioner further prayed for directions to Respondent Nos. 1 and 4 to make payment of balance compensation amount of Rs.2,26,80,000/- along with interest for 3 delayed payment in respect of land admeasuring 3460 sq. meters of C.T.S. NO.20295 which was relinquished to the Municipal Corporation for widening of Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road in the year 2003. 3. The Respondent Municipal Corporation filed affidavit in reply. Para 3 and 5 of the reply reads thus: "3. I say that, so far as the relief of restraining the answering respondent from taking forceful possession of land in CTS No.18417/P is concerned, it does not deserve to be granted for the reason, that, the correspondence with the petitioner placed on record would make it abundantly clear that, the petitioner is following the due procedure of law for taking lawful possession. Hereto annexed and marked Exh. 'R-1' Colly. are 4 the copies of communication addressed to the petitioner dated 21.6.2006, 2.11.2006, 26.6.2008. Hence it would be evident from the correspondence that the answering respondent is not at all taking forceful possession, inf act the answering respondent has been consistently requesting the petitioner to hand over the possession and accept the compensation either in the form of Additional FSI or compensation in form of money. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioner being misplaced and unfounded the relief claimed does not deserve to be granted. Furthermore if the allegations of the petitioner had in iota of substance in it, the answering respondent would heave taken possession of the land by now, considering that petition is 5 filed on 7.7.2008 and we are in 2010, though there was no prohibitory order, the answering respondent has not taken forceful possession. 5. I say that, the petitioner by way of said relinquishment has given up all the rights in favour of the Municipal Corporation voluntarily. It is merely to facilitate the sanctioning of lay-out of the M/s Hotel Devgiri Pvt. Ltd., which was not possible, as there was no approach road available to the said land, the petitioner had executed the relinquishment deed, along with M/s Hotel Devgiri Pvt. Ltd. Once having executed that registered relinquishment deed, the petitioner is precluded from claiming any compensation. I say that the petitioner having undertaken to receive whatever compensation would be payable vide its relinquishment deed, the petitioner is now 6 estopped from claiming the same. I say that, even otherwise the petitioner is claiming exorbitant amount of rs.2,76,80,000/- for 3460 sq. mtrs. for the land which is relinquished, to get the lay out sanctioned. The petitioner has not explained as to how an amount of Rs.2,76,80,000/- has been arrived at by them." 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Civil Suit was filed in the trial Court but it was withdrawn as issues related to the Constitutional provisions are involved and therefore, Writ Petition was filed. 5. We find that in view of the facts of the case, prayers made in the Petition and the reply filed by the Corporation, no interference at this stage is called for by this Court in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Petitioner may 7 resort to the other appropriate alternate remedies as and when the cause of action arises. The Petitioner is even entitled to approach the Civil Court or any other alternate forum for redressal of grievance, if any. The Petition raises disputed questions of fact for entertaining the Writ Petition. 6. In this view of the matter, Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. 7. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the claim raised by the contesting parties. All issues are kept open. [N.D. DESHPANDE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/MAR10/wp4274.08