1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6529/2008 Dharamchand s/o Motilal Acchha Age 45 years, Occ-Business & Agril R/o Jintur, Tq. & Dist.Parbhani. .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1] Jintur Municipal Council Jintur, Through its Chief Officer And others .. RESPONDENTS .... Shri Kulkarni With Shri M.R.Chhallani, Advocate for petitioner Shri S.P.Sonpawale,Adv. for respondent no.1. Shri D.R.Kale,A.G.P. for Respondents 2 and 3 .... CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL & N.D.DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 22/3/2010 ORAL ORDER : [PER PATIL,J.] 1] Heard learned counsel for respective parties. 2] The petitioner has prayed for direction to determine the 2 valuation of the land Survey No.132-A of Jintur, which according to the petitioner, was agreed to be purchased for an amount of Rs.26 lakhs. According to the petitioner, Municipal Council paid Rs.3,70,000/-. Petitioner prays for direction to Municipal Council, to pay the remaining amount of Rs.22,30,000/- alongwith 18% interest from 19/7/2004. 3] Respondent State filed affidavit in reply. In para 4 of the reply, it is contended that : “.......... There is no proposal received from the Respondent no.1 in respect of acquiring the same property of the petitioner and therfore, there is no question of determining the valuation of said property and making any payment to the petitioner as claimed. For the rest of the para the contents pertains to other respondent. Hence no comments.” 4] The Muicipal Council in the affidavit in reply, in para 4 3 contended that : “4] The deponent submits that in agreement petitioner agreed to accept Rs. 3,00,000/- as advance payment and he further admitted that whatever Govt. valuation assessed by the Town Planning authority for his land is admitted to him. Hence, there is no delay on the part of the Municipal authority for forwarding proposal for valuation to authority concern.” 5] The learned counsel for the Municipal Council submits that they are not aware as to whether State Government has issued any Notification for the acquisition of the said land under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The counsel submits that the land is reserved for public purposes and the public purpose is changed. Earlier, it was reserved for garden and now some portion of the land is reserved for grave yard. 4 6] Learned counsel for Municipal Council submits that the Valuation Officer is not determining the valuation. 7] The learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on reported judgment in 2009(3) Mh.L.J. Bhagwat S/o Nathu Patil Versus State of Maharashtra and others, in support of his contention that this Court can exercise power and direct respondent Municipal Council to deposit and pay remaining amount of Rs.22,30,000/- to the petitioner. 8] In the light of the facts of the case, the affidavit in reply filled by respondents and more particularly respondent State, we are not inclined to grant relief as prayed for in the Petition. 9] Petitioner is at liberty to resort to appropriate alternate remedy as permissible in law for redressal of his grievances. 10] Petition is accordingly dismissed. [N.D.DESHPANDE] [NARESH H.PATIL] JUDGE JUDGE 5 umg/wp6529-08