Bombay High Court
Ajit Dyandeo Mhatre And Ors vs Kalyan Dombivali Municipal ... on 26 September, 2025
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
2025:BHC-AS:41036-DB 10.WP.9804.2022.ODT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION No.9804 OF 2022
Ajit Dnyandeo Mhatre and others Petitioners
versus
Kalyan Dombivali Municipal Corporation and others Respondents
_______
Mr.D.S.Mhaispurkar with Mr.H.S.Pawaskar, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr.A.S.Rao, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Ms.Savita A.Prabhune, AGP for Respondent No.3.
Mr.Akshay P.Shinde, Advocate for Respondent No.4 MMRDA.
_______
CORAM : G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
Judgment Reserved on : 8th September 2025
Judgment Pronounced on : 26th September 2025
JUDGMENT (Per - Aarti Sathe J.) :
1. By this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
Petitioners seek to challenge inclusion of parts of their lands, situated within the
village of Chinchpada, Taluka Ambernath, District: Thane, now within the
jurisdiction of the Kalyan Dombivli Municipal Corporation- Respondent No.1 (for
short "KDMC"), as a part of Development Plan and the directions issued by the
Municipal Commissioner under the provisions of the Unified Development
Control and Promotion Regulations 2018 (UDCPR), by which the road line is
marked. It is petitioners' case that an area of almost 520 square meters is affected
by the Development Plan reservation of road (DP Reservation) and the widening
of road undertaken by the Respondent No. 1. The grievance of the Petitioner is
that once a Development Plan (DP) is sanctioned by the State Government under
MANISH Digitally signed by
MANISH
Section 31 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 the
SURESHRAO SURESHRAO THATTE
Date: 2025.09.26
THATTE 17:48:04 +0530
Municipal Corporation / Municipal Commissioner has no jurisdiction to alter the
alignment of the DP Road.
10.WP.9804.2022.ODT
2. On the earlier occasion, the proceedings were listed before this Court. On
17/08/2022 ad interim relief was granted to the petitioner whereby the
respondents were directed not to take possession of the land of the petitioner till
the next date. The said order has continued to operate till then.
3. Although there was delay on the part of KDMC in filing reply affidavit, the
reply affidavit dated 1st October 2024 was placed on record. Respondent Nos. 2 to
4 have not filed their affidavit in replies. The Petitioner has filed a rejoinder
affidavit to the affidavit-in-reply filed by Respondent No. 1-KDMC. The pleadings
are therefore completed.
4. By consent of the parties we have taken up this Writ Petition for final
disposal at the stage of admission itself.
5. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are as under:
(a) The Petitioners are the owners/occupants of the piece and parcel of
land bearing Survey No.34, Hissa No.6/3 of Village Chinchpada, Taluka
Ambernath District Thane admeasuring about 600 sq.meters (hereinafter referred
to as said land);
(b) KDMC-Respondent No. 1 was constituted vide Government
Notification dated 1st October 1983 issued under the provisions of Maharashtra
Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949. 27 villages including Chinchpada
wherein the land of the Petitioners is situated, was also included in KDMC-
Respondent No.1;
(c) Thereafter Government deleted all 27 villages from KDMC-
Respondent No. 1 and vide Notification dated 12th July 2002 a separate Gram
Panchayat was constituted for these 27 villages with effect from 20th February
2003;
(d) KDMC-Respondent No. 1 in the meantime have prepared and
published draft DP in the year 1995 and the same was sanctioned in the year 2005
vide Government Notification dated 3rd September 2005. As per the DP prepared
by KDMC, a DP road passing through Chinchpada Village, was shown wherein
the land of the Petitioner is situated and was affected. The alignment of the DP
Road according to the Petitioner was shown as a straight line;
Manish Thatte
10.WP.9804.2022.ODT
(e) Thereafter MMRDA-Respondent No. 4 was appointed as the
Planning Authority by the State Government in exercise of its powers conferred by
Clause (c) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 40 of Maharashtra Regional & Town
Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the "MRTP Act") for the aforesaid
27 villages from 7th December 2006 till 1st June 2015. MMRDA-Respondent No.
4 published the draft DP for the said 27 villages and submitted the same to the
State Government for approval on 11th March 2015 under Section 31 of the Act
and the same sanctioned by the State Government on 9th May 2017;
(f) In the meantime the 27 villages were once again included within the
jurisdiction of the KDMC;
(g) The Petitioners applied for permission to develop their land on 17 th
March, 2020. In response to the aforesaid application, the Petitioners were given
the DP remark indicating the road alignment sanctioned by the Municipal
Commissioner/ Corporation;
(h) In view of the DP Remarks, issued by the Municipal Corporation in
respect of the Petitioners lands affected by the road, the Petitioner vide letter dated
8th March, 2021 requested the Corporation for grant of Transferable Development
Rights (TDR) as compensation on account of the acquisition of the portion of their
land for DP Road;
(i) In response to the aforesaid Application, the Petitioners were asked
by the KDMC to produce their title documents so as to enable the Municipal
Commissioner/ Corporation to sanction TDR to the Petitioners for the area
affected by the DP road;
(j) A Notice dated 25th July 2022 under Section 126 of the Act was also
issued to the Petitioner by the Municipal Corporation for acquisition of the
affected portion of the Petitioner's land for carrying out the road widening of the
DP Road. The Petitioner were informed that they should approach Respondent
No. 2 for determining the compensation payable to the Petitioner in respect of the
affected land, which would obviously be by way of TDR;
(k) The Petitioners thereafter applied for certified copy of the DP
remarks in respect of the DP Road as sanctioned / realigned by the Municipal
Manish Thatte
10.WP.9804.2022.ODT
Commissioner / Corporation. On receipt of the DP remarks, it was evident that in
the DP prepared by MMRDA and sanctioned by the State Government a 30
meters DP road was shown in Green colour and the internal roads of 18 meters
were shown in Purple colour. The DP as prepared by KDMC - Respondent No. 1
and sanctioned by the State Government, the DP Road was shown in Red colour
and the re-alignment sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation/ Commissioner
subsequently was shown in Blue colour;
(l) In view of the discrepancies in the alignments of DP Road in the DP
prepared by MMRDA and KDMC, there was an anomaly and in the process of
road widening unnecessary open spaces were being left. In order to streamline the
same and with a view to remove the discrepancies in respect of the DP Road in the
two DPs i.e. one prepared by MMRDA and the other by KDMC, without changing
the inlet and outlet points to the DP road, the Municipal Corporation/
Commissioner sanctioned the proposal of relocation of DP Road under the
provisions of Rule 3.11 of Unified Development Control & Promotion Regulations
for Maharashtra (UDCPR).
6. On such backdrop, the short issue as involved in this petition is whether
considering the DP plan, the land in question admeasuring 520 sq.mtrs. belonging
to the petitioners whether is affected by the DP road in regard to which road
widening is being undertaken by KDMC.
7. We have heard the matter at length and rival contentions of the parties were
considered. We have also perused the documents on record Exhibit-G of the
petition, where the different road lines have been shown in different colours.
8. The following were the contentions as canvassed on behalf of the Petitioners
through their learned counsel Mr Mhaispurkar :
(i) It is submitted that Municipal Commissioner/ Corporation cannot
change roads sanctioned under the DP. It was further submitted that the
Municipal Commissioner/ Corporation had no powers to modify or change the
road already sanctioned under the DP;
(ii) That the Act being a special Act, the provisions of the same will
prevail over Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 (hereinafter referred
Manish Thatte
10.WP.9804.2022.ODT
MMC) and hence Municipal Commissioner/Corporation after the sanction of the
DP cannot demolish the property and acquire the land for road widening by
changing the position of road, as sanctioned in the DP. It was submitted that
action of Municipal Commissioner/ Corporation in acquiring the properties of the
Petitioners for the purposes of proposed road widening, was mala fide and contrary
to the provisions of law;
(iii) It was also submitted that change in position of existing road
amounted to substantial modification under Section 22(A) of the MRTP Act,
which requires Government sanction. Hence, the Municipal Commissioner/
Corporation could not take resort to the provisions of MMC Act for the purposes
of road widening. It is therefore prayed that the road as sanctioned by the
Municipal Commissioner/ Corporation, as shown in the blue marking in the plan
annexed as Annexure-G, be quashed and set aside and to proceed with the
development of the said road as per development road shown in red marking
shown in the same plan. It was further prayed that the Petitioners should not be
deprived of their said land and appropriate Writ should be issued prohibiting the
Respondents to acquire said land of Petitioners, which was being affected by the
proposed road widening as per sanctioned plan annexed as Annexure-G.
9. The Respondent No.1 KDMC has filed its affidavit-in-reply dated 1st
October 2024 and have opposed the reliefs as prayed for in the petition and
through their learned counsel Mr. A.S. Rao made the following submissions :
(i) It was contended that the Petitioners' contention of seeking quashing
of the development road as sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation/
Commissioner is misconceivedand was not correct, inasmuch as, the Municipal
Corporation/ Commissioner has rightly exercised powers vested under Regulation
3.11 of the UDCPR'. It was submitted that the said exercise of power was in the
interest of curing anomalies arising in view of existence of two DPs out of which
one was submitted under section 30 of the Act to the Government but not
sanctioned, and the other was sanctioned by Government of Maharashtra in
March-2015;
(ii) It is submitted that Respondent No. 1-KDMC had revised the DP
Manish Thatte
10.WP.9804.2022.ODT
and published it in the year 1996 under Section 26 of the Act which was
submitted to the State Government under Section 30 of the Act, but the same was
not sanctioned. It was later when Respondent No.-4/ MMRDA was appointed as
the Planning Authority, that another DP came to be sanctioned by the State
Government on 9th May, 2017;
(iii) On account of anomalies created by two proposed DPs, there was a
difficulty in developing the area wherein Petitioners' land is situated. These
anomalies were primarily created on account of the fact of Respondent No. 1
having published a revised DP in the year 1996 when the Petitioner's village was
under the jurisdiction of Respondent No. 1-KDMC. However thereafter in 2002
when by way of Notification dated 12th July, 2002, 27 villages including the
village of the Petitioner was deleted from Respondent No. 1, Respondent No. 4-
MMRDA was constituted as the Planning Authority. Respondent No. 4-MMRDA
then prepared a DP in 2006 and the said was sanctioned excluding EP in the year
2015 and with EP in the year 2017. Thereafter the said villages were again included
under Respondent No. 1-KDMC and hence the difference between the DP roads
proposed by Respondent No. 4-MMRDA and as sanctioned by the State
Government;
(iv) It is next submitted that in view of such anomaly, the Municipal
Commissioner/Corporation exercising powers under Clause-3.11 of the UDCPR
made certain modifications to the DP. However it was further contended that the
said modification did not affect the width of the road, and as per the plan of
Respondent No. 4-MMRDA and even of the Municipal
Corporation/Commissioner under Clause 3.11 of UDCPR there is no difference in
the width of the road and the same is maintained at 30 meters. It was therefore
submitted that the Petitioner's contention that the Respondent is trying to acquire
the land of the Petitioner is incorrect.
(v) It is submitted that a notice under Section 126 of the Act read with
Rule 11.2.4 of the UDCPR has been issued to the Petitioner and necessary
compensation will be paid as per the Act to the Petitioners. It is also submitted that
compensation in terms of providing 2 times TDR as per UDCPR provisions will be
Manish Thatte
10.WP.9804.2022.ODT
given to the Petitioners. The Respondents are ready to acquire the Petitioners land
as per Agreement and compensate them as per provisions of the Act read with
UDCPR Rules. Counsel for the Respondents also orally submitted during the
hearing that substantial portion of the road widening process is complete.
10. Analysis and Findings :
In the above backdrop of the matter and considering the rival contentions as
canvassed by the Parties, we proceed to give our findings :
(i) It is clear from the facts as culled out above that it is an undisputed
position by both parties i.e. Petitioner and Respondents that a notice was issued to
the Petitioners on 25th July, 2022 under section 126 of the Act. Section 126 of
the Act reads as follows:-
"126. Acquisition of land required for public purposes specified in
plans.-- (1) When after the publication of a draft Regional plan, a
Development or any other plan or town planning scheme, any land
is required or reserved for any of the public purposes specified in
any plan or scheme under this Act at any time, the Planning
Authority, Development Authority, or as the case may be, any
Appropriate Authority may, expect as otherwise provided in section
113A, acquire the land,--
(a) by agreement by paying an amount agreed to, or
(b) in lieu of any such amount, by granting the land-owner or
the lessee, subject, however, to the lessee paying the lessor or
depositing with the Planning Authority, Development Authority or
Appropriate Authority, as the case may be, for payment to the lessor,
an amount equivalent to the value of the lessor's interest to be
determined by any of the said Authorities concerned (on the basis of
the principles laid down in the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013), Floor Space Index (FSI) or Transferable Development
Rights (TDR) against the area of land surrendered free of cost and
free from all encumbrances, and also further additional Floor Space
Index or Transferable Development Rights against the development
or construction of the amenity on the surrendered land at his cost, as
the Final Development Control Regulations prepared in this behalf
provide, or
(c) by making an application to the State Government for
acquiring such land 5 under the provisions of the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and the land together
with the amenity, if any so developed or constructed so acquired by
Manish Thatte
10.WP.9804.2022.ODT
agreement or by grant of Floor Space Index or additional Floor
Space Index or Transferable Development Rights under this section
6 [or under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013), as the case may be, shall vest absolutely free from all
encumbrances in the Planning Authority, Development Authority,
or as the case may be, any Appropriate Authority.
(2) On receipt of such application, if the State Government is
satisfied that the land specified in the application is needed for the
public purpose therein specified, or 7 if the State Government
except in cases falling under section 49 and except as provided in
section 113A itself is of opinion that any land included in any such
plan is needed for any public purpose, it may make a declaration to
that effect in the Official Gazette, in the manner provided in section
19 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, in respect
of the said land. The declaration so published shall, notwithstanding
anything contained in the said Act, be deemed to be a declaration
duly made under the said section:
Provided that, subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), no
such declaration shall be made after the expiry of one year from the
date of publication of the draft Regional Plan, Development Plan or
any other Plan, or Scheme, as the case may be.
(3) On publication of a declaration under the said 3[section 19],
the collector shall proceed to take order for the acquisition of the
land under the said Act; and the provisions of that Act shall apply to
the acquisition of the said land, with the modification that the
market value of the land shall be,--
(i) where the land is to be acquired for the purposes of a new
town, the market value prevailing on the date of publication of the
notification constituting or declaring the Development Authority
for such town;
(ii) where the land is acquired for the purposes of a Special
Planning Authority, the market value prevailing on the date of
publication of the notification of the area as undeveloped area; and
(iii) in any other case, the market value on the date of
publication of the interim development plan, the draft development
plan or the plan for the area or areas for comprehensive
development, whichever is earlier, or as the case may be, the date or
publication of the draft Town Planning Scheme:
Provided that, nothing in this sub-section shall affect the date
for the purpose of determining the market value of land in respect
of which proceedings for acquisition commenced before the
commencement of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning
(Second Amendment) Act, 1972;
Provided further that, for the purpose of clause (ii) of this
Manish Thatte
10.WP.9804.2022.ODT
sub-section, the market value in respect of land included in any
undeveloped area notified under sub-section (1) of section 40 prior
to the commencement of the Maharashtra Regional and Town
Planning (Second Amendment) Act, 1972 shall be the market value
prevailing on the date of such commencement.]
(4) (notwithstanding anything contained in the proviso to sub-
section (2) and sub-section (3), if a declaration,] is not made, within
the period referred to in sub-section (2) (or having been made, the
aforesaid period expired on the commencement of the Maharashtra
Regional and Town Planning (Amendment) Act, 1993) the State
Government may make a fresh declaration for acquiring the land
under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013, in the manner provided by sub-sections (2) and (3) of
this section, subject to the modification that the market value of the
land shall be the market value at the date of declaration in the
Official Gazette, made for acquiring the land afresh."
On a plain reading of the above provisions, it is clear that after publication
of a draft Regional Plan, a Development or any other plan or town planning
scheme, where any land is required or reserved for any public purpose specified in
any Plan or scheme under the Act, then the concerned Development authority can
acquire land by agreement by paying an amount as agreed to or in lieu of such
amount grant the land owner TDR or Floor Space Index (FSI) against the area of
land surrendered free of cost and free from all encumbrances. Further other reliefs
and compensatory measures are also provided in the said section. Therefore for
any acquisition as contemplated under the Act, a mechanism of fair compensation
has been envisaged;
(ii) In the facts of the present case, as soon as the land of the Petitioner
was proposed to be acquired for road widening the requisite notice under section
126 of the Act was issued and the Petitioner was to be compensated. The Petitioner
however chose not to avail of the said compensation and challenged the very action
of road widening as proposed by the Respondents on account of the change in DP
sanctioned by the Municipal Commissioner/ Corporation;
(iii) This in our view is an incorrect position adopted by the Petitioner
and hence the petitioners contention that the acquisition of the land is resorted
Manish Thatte
10.WP.9804.2022.ODT
without following the provisions of the Act and the same is being done forcibly or
arbitrarily is incorrect and needs to be rejected. In fact the issuance of notice under
Section 126 of the Act itself shows that proper procedure has been adopted by the
Municipal Commissioner/ Corporation before acquiring the said land;
(iv) The facts clearly reveal that the Municipal Commissioner /
Corporation under the provisions of Rule 3.11 of the UDCPR has sanctioned the
road widening project taking into consideration the anomalies created on account
of two DP's, one prepared by Respondent No. 1-KDMC and the other by
Respondent No. 4-MMRDA.
(v) UDCPR has been primarily introduced in exercise of powers under
Section 37(1)AA(c) of the MRTP Act. UDCPR has been sanctioned by the State
Government under provisions of Section 37(1)AA(c) and Section 20 (4) of the
MRTP Act vide notification dated 2nd December 2020. These regulations are
brought into force for various Municipal Corporations within the State of
Maharashtra except Mumbai. Chapter 3 of these regulations provide for general
land development requirements. Paragraph 3.11 for powers of Municipal
Corporation for relocation of DP / RP SITES / ROADS. The provisions of Rule
3.11 are reproduced as under :
" Rule 3.11 -Relocation of DP-RP Sites/Roads : If the land proposed
to be laid own for any development is affected by any reservations of
public purposes, the Authority may allow adjusting the location of
such reservation to suit development without altering the area of such
reservation. Provided that such shifting of the reservations shall not
be permitted :-
(a) If the reservation proposed to be relocated is in parts;
(b) If the reservation proposed to be relocated is beyond 500 m.
from the original location in the Development Plan;
(c) If the reservation proposed to be relocated is beyond the
holding of the same owner;
(d) Unless the alternative location and size is at least similar to the
location and size of the Development Plan as regards access, levels
etc;
(e) If the reservation is already relocated under these regulations;
(f) If the land is reserved considering its geographical location like
Bio-Diversity Proposal, Nallah training reservation etc. and;
Manish Thatte
10.WP.9804.2022.ODT
(g) Unless the relocation is within area covered by the layout or
development permission under sanction.
All such relocation of the reservations shall be carried out by
the Authority and shall be reported to the Government and Director
of Town Planning, Maharashtra State at the time of sanctioning the
development permission. The Development Plan is deemed to be
modified to that extent.
Notwithstanding anything contained in this regulation, the
relocation of the reservation from a land may also be permitted on
any land within 300 meters belonging to other owner's land if the
said other owner consents (by way of registered deed) to such
relocation of reservation on his land and consents to handover his
land to the Planning Authority where reservation is proposed o be
relocated in lieu of TDR and also subject to restrictions mentioned in
above sub regulation No. (d), (e), and (f). In such case, the other
owner may not be insisted to submit the layout or development
proposal for his land.
In case of shifting of road alognment, the same shall be
allowed without change in the inlet and outlet points and also,
without affecting smooth flow of traffic.
Provided that such shifting shall be carried out by the
Authority in consultation with Divisional Joint Director of Town
Planning in case of D class Municipal Corporations, Municipal
Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Regional Plan areas.
In such case of shifting, the Development Plan/Regional Plan
shall be deemed to be modified to that extent."
It is seen from a plain reading of the above Rule that if the land proposed to
be laid out for any development is affected by any reservations of public purposes,
the Authority i.e ( in the present case the Municipal Commissioner) may allow
"adjusting the location" of such reservation to suit development without altering
the area of such reservations. The Rule further clarifies that such reservation will
not be permitted if the conditions as enumerated in clauses (a) to (g) of Rule 3.11
are attracted. The Rule provides that in case of shifting of the road alignment, the
same shall be allowed without change in the inlet and outlet points and also
without affecting smooth flow of traffic;
(vi) In the facts of the present case, Petitioner has not demonstrated that
his case falls in the conditions (a) to (g) of Rule 3.11 which does not permit shifting
of reservations. The only grievance of the Petitioners is that on account of the DP
sanctioned by the Municipal Commissioner/ Corporation they have lost some part
Manish Thatte
10.WP.9804.2022.ODT
of their land. However in respect of such loss of land, the Petitioners are issued a
notice under section 126 of the Act for compensation or TDR/ FSI. Besides this it
has been categorically submitted by Respondent No. 1 that there is no change in
the land affected by the road widening either under Respondent No. 4- MMRDA
plan or under the road alignment sanctioned by the Municipal Commissioner /
Corporation under Rule 3.11 of the UDCPR. It is in fact the Respondent No. 1's
case that the width of the road is maintained at 30 metre wide DP road in both the
plans i.e of Respondent No. 4-MMRDA and the Municipal
Commissioner/Corporation We are therefore don't see how the Petitioner is
aggrieved by the decision of the Municipal Commissioner/ Corporation in granting
his approval under Rule 3.11 of the UDCPR. We, are, therefore of the view that
due procedure of law has been followed by issuing notice under Section 126 of the
Act to the Petitioner and modifying the DP plans ( to get over the anomalies)
under Rule 3.11 of the UDCPR by the Municipal Commissioner/ Corporation
prior to acquisition of the Petitioners land for road widening is correct and we
therefore reject the contentions of the Petitioner;
(vii) The Powers of the Municipal Commissioner for Municipal
Corporation to change the road lines and to prescribe new road lines are conferred
under the provisions of Maharashtra Provincial Municipal Corporations Act as well
as under Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888. The power under Regulation
3.11 is expressly conferred by the said regulation which is in the nature of delegated
legislation;
(viii) It has further been submitted by Shri A.S. Rao, Counsel appearing on
behalf of Respondent No. 1 that substantial work of the road widening work has
been completed and hence the present litigation will affect and stall the road
widening project which is essentially an infrastructure project being carried out and
more particularly in view of the ad-interim orders passed on this petition. We are in
agreement with the contention of Shri Rao, Counsel appearing on behalf of
Respondent No. 1 that the petitioner canvassing such contentions in the present
Writ Petition ought not to obstruct the road widening work which have
substantially progressed and except for the petitioner's small patch of land, rest of
Manish Thatte
10.WP.9804.2022.ODT
the road widening has already reached the final stage for public utility.
Accordingly, serious prejudice being caused to the public interest by the road
widening work being halted on account of such litigation being pursued by the
petitioner. We are also of the clear opinion that the road widening project is an
infrastructure project. The Court in considering such pleas would be required to
be governed by the wisdom of the legislature, which guide the Courts in
considering such issues. In such context, we refer to the provisions of Section
41(ha) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 as incorporated by Amendment Act No. 18
of 2018, which provides that injunction needs to be refused in respect of
infrastructure project. The said provisions reads thus:
"Section 41. Injunction when refused:- An injunction cannot be
granted---
(a)......
(b).........
(c )........
(d)......
(e) ......
(ha) if it would impede or delay the progress or completion of any
infrastructure project or interfere with the continued provision of
relevant facility related thereto or services being the subject matter of
such project."
In the aforesaid circumstances, we are not persuaded to accept the
petitioners' contention that the Municipal Corporation has indulged into any gross
illegality in undertaking public works of road widening and more particulalry
involving the petitioners land and in the event, some portion of the petitioners
land is affected, the petitioners certainly would be compensated as may be
permissible in law. However, no relief can be granted to the petitioners to stall the
public project which would cause serious prejudice to public interest.
(ix) It has further been brought to our notice by the Counsel for
Respondent No. 1 that the Plan as sanctioned by the Municipal Commissioner /
Corporation at Exhibit-G of the Petition does not in any way alter the width of the
road and the same is maintained at 30 meters wide DP road. There can be therefore
Manish Thatte
10.WP.9804.2022.ODT
no grievance on the part of the Petitioners.
11. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are not inclined to entertain the
aforesaid Writ Petition. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
12. In view of dismissal of the petition, interim order stands vacated.
13. At this stage learned counsel for the Petitioner has prayed for continuation
of the ad-interim orders. However, having already observed that the public works
are delayed, in view of the pendency of this petition, his request is not accepted.
(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
Manish Thatte
