1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.640/2007 Yamunabai Garbad Nannaware and others .. PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others .. RESPONDENTS .... Shri P.N.Kutti, Advocate for petitioner Shri V.H.Dighe,A.G.P. for Respondents 1 to 4 Shri P.B.Patil,Adv.for R.5 Shri Hemant Pawar,Adv.for R.6. .... 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 petitioners contention is that their land was utilised by the State for purposes of road, without acquiring the same and 2 without paying compensation in respect of subject land. The petitioners, therefore, filed the present Writ Petition in the year 2007 praying for directions to the respondents to acquire the land and pay compensation. The State and the Zilla Parishad filed affidavit in reply. Onbehalf of the State, Sub Divisional Officer, P.W.D. Pachora filed the reply. In para 4, the deponent states that “4] I say that, as has been mentioned above the said road was handed over to the Public Works Department for maintenance in the year 1982. The existing road was of water bound Macadum. In the year 2004 the department undertook the work of Black Topping (Tarring) on the existing water bound Mecadum road in order to strength the said road. However, at village Satgaon due to objections and obstructions raised by the villagers the road to the ewxtent of 350 meters has 3 been left out from t arring. Further, certain villagers had made illegal encroachments on both the sides of the existing road and therefore, notices had been issued to remove encroachments under the provisions of the Bombay Highway Act. 3] The Zilla Parishad in the affidavit in reply denied that the road was prepared in the year 1981. The stand of the Zilla Parishad is that the said road was prepared by Gram Panchayat Satgaon Dongri in the year 1972 during the scarcity period and thereafter, it was handed over to the Jalgaon Zilla Parishad for maintenance. The Zilla Parishad lateron handed over the user and supervision of the road to P.W.D. of the State and now it is in the possession of P.W.D. 4] It seems that the road was in existence prior to more than 35 years from the available record. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that he made representation to the 4 authorities, for acquiring the land but as no response was given, the petitioner had approached this Court. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner placed reliance on judgment reported in 2008 (4) Mh.L.J. 370 Vijay Kumar Gupta V/s State of Maharashtra and others 5] The learned A.G.P. Shri Dighe submitted that the petitioner was aware of the user of the road since last more than 35 years, but allowed others to use the road including the authorities, villagers and public at large. In the submission of the counsel, the petitioner therefore, shall not be permitted now to raise issue in respect of acquisition of his land under the Land Acquisition Act and demand compensation. 6] The learned counsel appearing for the Gram Panchayat referred to representation made by petitioners dated 18/11/2004. 7] We find that the principles enunciated in the case of State of Maharashtra V/s Digambar (1995) 4 S.C.C. 683 would 5 govern the facts of the case. The petitioners land was being used for village road since last more than 35 years. The petitioner has raised issues in respect of acquisition of land at a highly belated stage. In view of the ongoing development, State decided to lay down tar on the road for which the petitioner cannot take benefit by submitting that the same has to be done by acquiring the land. In exercise of power under extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we do not find that the petitioner had made out any case for interference. The Petition is without merit. Petition stands dismissed. [N.D.DESHPANDE] [NARESH H.PATIL] JUDGE JUDGE umg/wp640-07