- 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5279/1996 1] Madhav Raghunath Thatte, age 63 yrs., occu.agri., r/o Bapukrupa Bungalow, Samata Colony, Ward No.7, Shrirampur Dist.Ahmednagar. Since deceased, through legal representative petitioner no.2 – Smt.Jayashri Madhav Thatte, age 65 yrs., occu.household r/o Bapukrupa Bungalow, Samata Colony, Ward No.7, Shrirampur Dist.Ahmednagar. 2] Mrs.Jayashri Madhav Thatte, age 56 yrs., occu.household, r/o Bapukrupa Bungalow, Samata Colony, Ward No.7, Shrirampur Dist.Ahmednagar. ...Petitioner.. Versus 1] The State of Maharashtra. 2] The Collector, Ahmednagar. 3] Land Acquisition Officer, Shrirampur. Dist.Ahmednagar. 4] The Shrirampur Municipal Council, Shrirampur, through its Chief Officer, Shrirampur Dist.Ahmednagar. - 2 - 5] The Arbitrator, Town Planning Scheme, Shrirampur No.IV, Shrirampur. Dist.Ahmednagar. ...Respondents... ..... Shri A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for petitioner no.2. Shri K.G. Patil, AGP for respondent nos.1 to 3. Shri A.H. Kasliwal, Advocate for respondent no.4. Respondent no.5 served. ..... CORAM: B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE: 05.08.2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per Gavai, J.): 1] The petitioner no.2 has filed the present petition for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith initiate the proceedings for acquisition of the lands of petitioner no.2’s part Survey No.52 CTS No.2000/A situated at Shrirampur. It is the contention of the petitioner that though in the initial development scheme, which was published in the year 1979, which was sanctioned on 15.12.1986, land of the petitioner no.2 was not shown as reserved for public road. In the revised draft plan, which is made in the year 1998 and finalised in 1991, the reservation has been shown for road. - 3 - 2] Shri A.S. Bajaj, the learned counsel for the petitioner no.2, submits that the said change would be permissible only if the provisions of Section 92 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966, are invoked and if the provisions of Section 92 are to be invoked, the procedure will have to be started afresh. 3] From the perusal of the affidavit in reply, it would be clear that though the revised development plan is sanctioned by the Government and the scheme is yet to be sanctioned, the matter is pending before the Arbitrator. 4] In that view of the matter, we find that the interest of justice would be met by directing the Arbitrator to dispose of the proceedings pending before him as expeditiously s possible and in any case within a period of one year from today. We direct accordingly. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. (S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.) ndk/c58105