1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.302 OF 2010 ... Bhausaheb Baburao Bahirat and ors. ...Petitioners v/s. State of Maharashtra & ors. ...Respondents ... Mr.G.S.Godbole with Mr.Ashok B. Tajane for the Petitioners. Mr.V.A.Sonpal, A-Panel Counsel for the State. ... CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, & A.R.JOSHI, JJ DATED: 13 th January, 2010 P.C.: 1. By this petition the Petitioners challenge compulsory acquisition of their 2 lands for widening a road. There are no allegation of any malafide against anybody. Perusal of the objections that were filed, after Section 4 notice was received by the Petitioners, show that only objection raised is that it is not necessary to widen the road and that the Petitioners have raised construction on their lands and if the property is acquired that construction will have to be pulled down. In our opinion, so far as question of width of the road is concerned, it is Planning Authority which is the Best Judge of the matter and decision of the Planning Authority cannot be interfered with unless the Court finds that it vitiates either by malice or contrary to any mandatory provisions of law. If it is necessary to widen the road, it is inevitable that the construction that have come up will have to be demolished. Though the authorities have 3 invoked Section 17, the right of the Petitioners to get the compensation just equivalent to their property is still available to them. The only thing that will happen because of application of Section 17 is that the Petitioners will have to hand over possession of the land even before the award is made. 2. It was also claimed that in the regional plan the width of the road is only 18 meters, but now the acquisition is for 45 meters wide road. In our opinion, this objection has not been raised before the Land Acquisition Officer. In any case, the Planning Authority cannot necessarily be restricted to the width of the road which is shown in the regional plan. There is a specific provision made in the Town Planning Act permitting the Planning Authority to 4 acquire the land under the Land Acquisition Act also if they found it necessary to do so in the public interest. 3. Taking into consideration the nature of objections raised pursuant to notice under Section 4, no fault can be found with the acquisition. Petition is rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.) (A.R.JOSHI, J.)