Amol Narayan Injalkar And Others vs State Of Maharashtra, Through ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 7113 Bom

                                         1                        wp860.20

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR


                      WRIT PETITION NO.860 OF 2020


1)   Amol Narayan Injalkar,
     aged about 40 years, occupation :
     agriculturist, r/o Survey No.158,
     village Dolhari, Tahsil Darwha,
     District Yavatmal.

2)   Sandip Dnyaneshwar Ole Patil,
     aged about 50 years, occupation :
     business, r/o Gat No.5, Village
     Shendri, Tahsil Darwha,
     District Yavatmal.

3)   Dnyaneshwar Govindrao Wankhede,
     aged about 45 years, occupation :
     agriculturist, r/o Survey no.25,
     village Shendri, Tahsil Darwha,
     District Yavatmal.

4)   Gayabai Champatrao Lonkar,
     aged about : major, occupation :
     agriculturist, r/o Survey No.55,
     village Ganeshpur Tahsil Darwha,
     District Yavatmal.

5)   Dattatraya Pandurang Raut,
     aged : major, occupation :
     agriculturist, r/o Survey No.184,
     village Pekarda, Tahsil Darwha,
     District Yavatmal.                            ...     Petitioners

                - Versus -

1)   State of Maharashtra, through the
     Public Works Department,




 ::: Uploaded on - 05/05/2021                ::: Downloaded on - 10/09/2021 04:56:10 :::
                                              2                           wp860.20

     Mantralaya, Madam Cama Road,
     Mumbai - 440032.

2)   Eagle India Limited, having its
     Registered Office at Eagal
     Nest, Plot No.758, Behind
     Chopra Court, Ulhasnagar, Thane,
     Maharashtra.                                         ...     Respondents
                -----------------
Shri Atharva S. Manohar, Advocate for petitioners.
Shri N.R. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent no.1.
                ----------------

                                    CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
                                            AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.

DATED : MAY 4, 2021

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.) :

Hearing was conducted through Video Conferencing and the

learned Counsel for the parties agreed that the audio and visual

quality was proper.

2) Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the

learned Counsel appearing for the parties.

3) By this petition, the petitioners have sought a declaration that

the action being taken by the respondents in forcibly taking

possession of the lands of the petitioners in their effort to undertake

3 wp860.20

road widening work is violative of Article 300-A of the Constitution

of India. The petitioners have also sought an injunction against the

respondents from taking possession of any portion of the lands of

the petitioners and carrying out the road widening work.

4) Shri Patil, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the

respondent no.1, submits that these reliefs have been sought by the

petitioners without any reasonable apprehension of the possibility of

taking possession of the lands of the petitioners and carrying out

road widening work by entering into their lands. He further submits

that the respondent no.1 has made specific statements in this regard,

which should allay whatever apprehensions the petitioners may have

in the matter. Shri Atharva Manohar, learned Counsel for the

petitioners, states that if these statements are recorded in the

present judgment, it would serve the purpose of the petitioners.

5) We are also of the opinion that the statements so made in the

reply filed on behalf of respondent no.1 be reproduced here for the

sake of convenience and they go as under :

"3. Fact remains that neither any land of the petitioners was ever being taken in possession as alleged and nor any land of the petitioners sought to be acquired as alleged.

4 wp860.20

All that is being done is that width of the bitumen surface on the existing road is being widened on the existing "earthen/murum road shoulder" and even thereafter portion of the existing earthen/shoulder of the road shall still exist and the earlier "Catch Water Drain"/"Field Drain" along the road will continue to exist as it existed earlier. No land beyond the existing earlier "Catch Water Drain"/"Field Drain" is sought to be used, acquired or sought to be taken in possession by the respondents.

The earlier existing bitumen surface is of 5.50 meters width and same is being widened from 5.50 to 10.00 meters on the existing "earthen/murum road shoulder". There has been no proposed expansion of the road into any of the adjoining fields."

6) The afore-stated statements serve the purpose of this petition

and, therefore, this petition deserves to be disposed of in terms of

these statements. The petition is disposed of accordingly. Rule is

made absolute in the above terms. No costs.

            JUDGE                                                      JUDGE

khj