pvr １ wp4810-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4810 OF 2010 Anil Jaysingrao Shitole. ...Petitioner vs. 1. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents --- Mr.S.M.Gorwadkar, for Petitioner. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, for Respondent  State. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED: 10th October,2011. P.C.:- 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges compulsory acquisition of his land for road widening. The learned Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that several objections were raised by the petitioner to the proposed acquisition. Those objections have not been pvr ２ wp4810-10 properly dealt with. The learned Counsel also objected to the manner in which the inquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act has been held. Perusal of the record shows that a detail inquiry report under Section 5A of the Act was prepared by the Land Acquisition Officer after hearing all the objectors including the petitioner, and all the objections raised by the petitioner were clearly dealt with in detail. The principal objection of the petitioner was that there was no need to widen the road. Under Section 5A Inquiry Report it has been pointed that there are Industrial units coming up as also there are educational institutions coming up for the benefits of the public, and for providing infrastructural facilities to the said institutions, the road is to be widened. What is further pertinent to be noted is that in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Government, it is clearly stated that during the course of inquiry under Section 5A of the Act, all the land pvr ３ wp4810-10 owners whose lands are to be acquired for widening of the road including the petitioner had accepted the acquisition but requested that they may be given compensation in the form of TDR and the land may be acquired in such a manner that the road be widened equally on both the sides and they also requested to change the zoning of the area to residential zone. In that affidavit, there is a clear statement made that an application for that purpose is signed by the petitioner. However, the petitioner has not filed any counter affidavit to deny the said contention. The learned Counsel appearing for petitioner submitted that so far as the document produced by the Government in support of its contention is concerned, it does not bear the petitioner s signature. Even assuming that the learned Counsel appearing for petitioner is right, it is clear from the documents produced on record that most of the land owners have agreed to the acquisition of the land and for pvr ４ wp4810-10 accepting TDR in the form of compensation. Therefore, if the majority of the land owners whose lands are to be acquired, are agreed for acquisition of their land for the project and they have also requested for the compensation in the form of TDR, in our opinion, the objections raised only by the petitioner to the project cannot be entertained, as the acquisition is clearly for public purpose. The petition, therefore, cannot be entertained. It is rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (ANOOP V.MOHTA, J.)