1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2734 OF 2008 Shri.Deepak Vasant Bhave. ...Petitioner. vs. 1.Pune Municipal Corporation and another. ...Respondents. --- Mr.A.V.Anturkar i/b. Mr.S.B.Deshmukh,for Petitioner. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & N.D.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED: 21ST April,2008. P.C.:- 1. By this petition, the petitioner is seeking writ of mandamus directing the respondents to fix the price payable to the petitioner, as the market value, of the land acquired by the respondents. Admittedly, 2 possession of the land of the petitioner was taken for road widening. At that time, the petitioner had filed a writ petition in this Court being writ petition no. 2465 of 2003. In that petition, relief was sought was declaration that the act of the Corporation of taking possession of the land is illegal and there was also a prayer made in that petition for direction to the Corporation to deposit the amount of Rs.7 lakhs in the Court. That petition was disposed of by order dated 18.8.2003. The Court noted in that order that the land was in the lay out of Co-operative society and the Co-operative society had given no objection to the widening of the road. Petitioner is a member of that Co-operative society. A statement was made on behalf of the Corporation that the Corporation will fix compensation and shall pay over the same to the petitioner. It is also a common ground that though the compensation has been paid to the petitioner, it appears that the petitioner is not happy with the compensation that has been paid. According to the petitioner, his land should have been acquired under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act and he should be paid 3 compensation at market rate. He submits that his land has been acquired under the provisions of Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act and because of the judgment of the Division bench of this Court in the case of ”Pune Municipal Corporation Vs. Hazarat Khawaja, 1983(2) Bombay Cases Reporter, 33” he is not entitled to market value, but he is entitled to be compensated for loss sustained. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel the judgment of the Division Bench is liable to be reviewed. He submits that some of the properties which have been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, considerably more amount has been paid to the land owners. 2. In our opinion, however, so far as the question of acquisition of the land of the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner's society has given no objection for acquisition of the land. Therefore, there can be no challenge to the acquisition of land. So far as the payment of compensation is concerned, it is clear from the order dated 18.8.2003 that the Corporation has agreed to fix and pay compensation only under Bombay Provincial Municipal corporations 4 Act. When the petition was disposed of in the year 2003 the petitioner knew that the compensation would be paid to him under the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act. So far as the judgment of the Division Bench is concerned, that judgment is in the field right from the year 1983 and we do not see any compelling reason to review the law laid down by that judgment. In our opinion, a challenge to the payment of compensation under the provisions of Bombay Provincial Corporations Act cannot be entertained at this stage because that position was clear to the petitioner in the year 2003 itself. We do not see any merit in the petition. Hence, the petition is rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (N.D.DESHPANDE, J.) ---