← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/803/2018dismissed

Sou. Madhavi Kishor Shinde v. The State Of Maharashtra, And ORS.

2020-01-13Hon'Ble Shri Justice A.A. Sayed,Hon'Ble Smt. Justice Anuja Prabhudessai2 pages

P.H. Jayani 35 WP803.18.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 803 OF 2018 Madhavi Kishor Shinde .....Petitioner v/s.

The State of Maharashtra and ors.

......Respondents Mr. J. Shekhar a/w. Sairuchita Chowdhary i/b. J. Shekhar and Co. for the Petitioner.

Ms. P.N. Diwan, AGP for the State / Respondent No.1. Mr. S.B. Talekar i/b. Talekar and Associates for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

CORAM: A.A. SAYED, AND SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.

DATE : 13th JANUARY, 2020.

P. C. :- .

The Petitioner has fled this Petition for the following relief :- " B. This Hon'ble Court may kindly issue a writ of mandamus and any other appropriate writ and/or direction and/or order and thereby direct the Respondents No.2 and 3 to pay the monetary compensation to the Petitioner in connection with land situated at Survey No. 231/1/F and land situated at Survey No.231/1/J having total area of 434 Sq. Mtrs. in connection with 12 Mtrs. wide Development Plan Road in Hadapsar area ; "

2.

According to the Petitioner, the Respondent - Corporation had constructed the road of 4 mtrs on the land of the Petitioner for which he is entitled to claim compensation.

1/2

P.H. Jayani 35 WP803.18.doc 3.

In paragraph 9 of the Afdavit-in-Reply fled on behalf of the Respondent Nos.2 and 3, it is stated as follows :- " 9. I say that the 12 mtr road passing through S.No.231 was in existence even before the Hadapsar area was included within the municipal limits of Pune Municipal Corporation. The 12 mtr road is in existence for more than 35 years and has attained the character of road by user. "

4.

There is no Afdavit-in-Rejoinder fled by the Petitioner controverting the aforesaid statements. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we fnd that the Petitioner has approached to the Court after an inordinate delay of 31⁄2 decades. 5.

This is not a case to exercise the extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Digitally signed by Preeti H.

Jayani Date:

2020.01.17 12:16:54 +0530 Preeti H.

Jayani (SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) (A.A. SAYED, J.) 2/2