: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8304 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.8304 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.8304 OF 2005 Shri Shantaram Baburao Nanekar & Ors. .. Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr.G.S.Godbole & Mr.R.D.Barve for the petitioners. Mr.A.H.Palekar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 4. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & R.Y. GANOO, JJ. R.Y. GANOO, JJ. R.Y. GANOO, JJ. DATE : 26th June, 2008. DATE : 26th June, 2008. DATE : 26th June, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges compulsory acquisition of his land for expansion of National Highway No.50. 2. Admittedly, though initially, Notification under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act was not issued. Award was not made. Now, admittedly, Notification under Section 6 has been issued and award has also been made. 3. Perusal of the petition that has been filed by the petitioner shows that the objection of the petitioner to the compulsory acquisition of the land was that for widening the highway, acquisition of his land is not necessary. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the : 2 : State giving reasons why it was necessary to acquire the land of the petitioner. Paragraphs 8,9 and 10 of the affidavit, in our opinion, are relevant. They read as under :- "8. I say that the work of widening of the road and construction of bridge is executed as per the plan sanctioned by M.O.R.T. and H. only in 45 meter land. At Chainage No.31/200, there exist two Lanes and minor bridge, which is in good condition. So instead of demolishing the old bridge, new two lanes bridge was / is planned to construct adjacent to existing bridge. In order to protect the foundation of the old bridge about 5.0 meter gap was necessarily required to be provided in between the two bridges for the purpose of safety of foundation. It means that over all width required for construction of road, bridges and service road is 30.20 meter. Remaining land width will be used for utility purposes i.e. for Water supply line, telephone line, optical fibre cables and sewerage line etc. I say that it is not true to say that the road widening work is going on only on one side, but the same is continuing on both the sides of NH-50 road. I say that only due to the aforesaid fact that there is Nala, Sharp curve and deep valley etc. and for the purpose of safety of foundation of old bridge on Chainage No.31/200 on NH-50, it was expedient and necessary to construct new bridge with a gap of 5 meter from the old bridge on the western side of the NH-50 road and the Petitioner’s land which is under acquisition is on the western side of NH-50 road at the relevant location of the road. 9. I say that the office of the Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 have constructed a small bridge over the nala to the western side of the said small bridge on the existing Pune-Nasik Highway. Further there is distance of 5 meters between the said old bridge and the said new bridge. It is also alleged that the Respondents have constructed one wall in the Northern side portion of the suit land and they have started excavation in the suit land for the purpose of road widening of : 3 : Pune-Nasik Highway. 10. I say that the Pune-Nasik National Highway passes through he petitioner’s land and at the relevant portion, there is deep valley on the eastern side and also sharp curve, which is accident prone area and therefore it was extremely necessary to construct small bridge on the said Nala, which is in the suit land to the western side and also it was required to construct small bridge on the existing Pune-Nasik National Highway and also one wall was required to be constructed by way of retaining the earth/soil and also to safeguard and to have safety and also to strengthen the capacity of the bridge as stated above." 4. In our opinion, considering that the statements made in the above referred paragraphs in the affidavit are uncontroverted. No exception can be taken to the acquisition of the land. Additionally, now award has been made, possession of the land has already been taken and the road has already been constructed, in this view of the matter, in our opinion, no orders can be passed in this petition except dismissing the petition. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) (D.K. DESHMUKH, J.) : 4 : (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.) (R.Y. GANOO, J.)