:1: :1: :1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6938 OF 2008 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6938 OF 2008 CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6938 OF 2008 Smt.Kausalya Dadasaheb Jadhav and ors Petitioners Vs. The State of Maharashtra and ors. Respondents Mr Madhav Jamdar, for the petitioners. Mr V.S.Gokhale, AGP for respondent nos 1,2,8 and 9. Mr Narendra V. Walawalkar, Sr.Advocate i/b G.H.Keluskar, for respondent nos 3 and 4. Mr Vijay Patil, for respondent no.7. CORAM : S.B.MHASE & CORAM : S.B.MHASE & CORAM : S.B.MHASE & D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. D.B.BHOSALE, JJ. DATE : 15.01.2009. DATE : 15.01.2009. DATE : 15.01.2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith with the consent of the parties. 3. The petitioners have approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking directions that the entire land acquisition proceedings with respect to lands, viz. portion of Survey nos 28 and 29 of Mauje Pimple-Nilakh, Taluka-Haveli, Dist-Pune, more particularly mentioned in Declaration dated 29.1.2009 (for short,"the said land") be quashed and set aside. The petitioners have claimed that their houses are located on the said lands, which the respondents are acquiring for :2: :2: :2: the purposes of the road between village Pimple-Nilakh to Wakad within the jurisdiction of Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (for short, "PCMC"). Grievance of the petitioners is that as per the proposed development plan of 1991 the road was not passing through the said lands where the houses of the petitioners are located. The petitioners further submitted that the proposed development plan was modified by the Planning Authority and the Planning Authority has submitted a different proposal of a road which also does not pass through the lands of the petitioners. Counsel for the petitioners, however, contended that as per the development plan the road passes through the said land. It was further contended that the PCMC have proposed modification and they have submitted it under section 37 of the MRTP Act and during pendency of its consideration by the State the Commissioner is proceeding to acquire the petitioners lands by invoking the urgency clause. 4. After hearing the parties, it is an admitted fact that the respondent-corporation has submitted a proposal under section 37 for modification of the development plan in which the said road has been shown in a modified way. However, the proposal under section 37 is pending before the Government and yet :3: :3: :3: it has not been disposed of by the Government. Learned counsel for the respondent-corporation, after having realised this anomalous position, submitted that directions may be issued to the Government to consider and dispose of the proposal pending under section 37 in respect of the modification of the development plan to the extent of this road. For this submission and the proposal, the petitioners have no objection. Even the Government for the respondent-State of Maharashtra, has no objection. Learned AGP submitted that the proposal will be considered on priority basis following the due procedure laid down under section 37 of the MRTP Act. Mr Patil, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 also submitted that while considering the said proposal he may be heard by the Government. Thus, we find that the petitioners and the respondents both are in agreement that the proposal under section 37 pending with the Government in respect of modification shall be disposed of by the Government as early as possible in accordance with the procedure provided under section 37. Therefore, we pass the following order. . We direct respondent nos 1 and 2 that the proposal submitted by respondent no.3 (Planning authority) under section 37 in respect of the :4: :4: :4: modification of the development plan and more specifically in respect of the road which joins Mouje Pimple-Nilakh and Wakad, shall be considered as early as possible, following the procedure as laid down under section 37. Respondent nos 1 and 2 will equally give an opportunity to the petitioners and the respondents, apart from the persons who raised objection in respect of the modification after the publication of the notices under section 37. Since we have issued a direction to consider the proposal under section 37 by respondent nos 1 and 2, it will be appropriate to stay the acquisition proceedings which are presently going on in respect of the acquisition of the lands of the petitioners. Order accordingly. The respondents shall endeavour to complete the enquiry under section 37 as early as possible and in any event within a period of six months from today. Contentions of all the parties in respect of the proposed road and the modification are kept open and we hope that respondent nos 1 and 2 pass a speaking order in respect of the total modification, either accepting or rejecting the same. We make it clear that the contentions on merits are not considered by this court and those are kept open. . Rule made absolute in terms of the above directions. :5: :5: :5: (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (D.B.BHOSALE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.) (S.B.MHASE, J.)