1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.3312 OF 2008 Shri Srigurudev Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. ...Petitioner. Vs. The Municipal Corporation of the City of Pune. ...Respondent. .... Mr. G.S. Godbole for the Petitioner. Mr. R.G. Ketkar for the Respondent. ..... CORAM :DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD & K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. May 14, 2008. P.C.: After the publication of a Draft Development Plan on 30th November 2005, the Final Development Plan was sanctioned sometime in January 2008. Survey No.17 is partly affected by a reservation for a 30 meter wide road and partly by a playground. The grievance of the Petitioner in these proceedings is that the Municipal Corporation of Pune, the First Respondent, has demolished the compound wall on the western side of the land which the Petitioner 2 claims, namely, Survey Nos. 17/5/7, 17/5/9, 17/5/10, 17/5/11,17/5/12, 17/5/13, 17/5/14, 17/4/8, 17/4/9, 17/4/10, 17/4/11, 17/4/13 and 1714/14 of village Balewadi, Taluka Haveli in the District of Pune. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent has stated upon the instructions of Shri Suresh Desai, Assistant Engineer, Land Acquisition Department, that the Respondent has neither demolished the compound wall of the Petitioner, nor is any action being taken for the construction of the road without following due process of law. Learned Counsel further states that notices have already been issued to several land owners under Section 126(1)(a) or (b) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and that a similar notice would be issued to the Petitioner making an offer of compensation. It has also been stated before the Court on instructions that in the event that no agreement is arrived at with the Petitioner, recourse would be taken by the Respondent to the provisions of Section 126(2) for acquisition of the land required for implementing the reservation under the sanctioned development plan. The Court has been informed that the Municipal Corporation has no objection to the Petitioner protecting, by barbed wire fencing, the 3 existing area of its property until the acquisition proceedings are complete. In view of the statement which has been made on behalf of the Municipal Corporation, Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner does not seek any further relief in the petition. The petition shall accordingly stand disposed of. DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. (VACATION JUDGE) K.U. CHANDIWAL,J. (VACATION JUDGE)