Ankush Mahatu Balwadkar vs Pune Municipal Corporation Assi. Commissioner Pune and Anr.

. Heard Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Kulkarni, learned counsel for the respondent - Pune Municipal Corporation as also Ms. Bane, learned AGP for respondent No.2 - Collector, Pune.

¶22

Mr. Muley, learned counsel appearing for the applicants in the intervention application was also heard.

¶23

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and the vehement submissions made on behalf of all the parties, we are of the opinion that

¶24

1/3

¶25

909_WP14998_23.doc

¶26

the urgency in the matter for construction of an approach road to the bridge over the Mula-Mutha river in Pune cannot be denied. The bridge has been already constructed but the public at large is unable to use the same, for the reason that the approach road could not be constructed. The plight of the general public was taken note of by this Court in Public Interest Litigation No.106 of 2024 and in the order dated 09.04.2025 passed in the said PIL, it was noted that the concerned authorities were expected to immediately consider the proposal, complete relevant formalities and to acquire the portion of land that would facilitate construction of the approach road towards the bridge.

¶27

The fact, that the land belonging to the petitioner, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition, would be acquired for constructing the approach road, has been asserted on behalf of the respondent No.1 municipal corporation. It is in this backdrop that the petitioner has specifically raised an alternative prayer for a direction to the respondents to acquire the land belonging to him, in the event the said land is required for construction of the approach road leading to the bridge.

¶28

The learned counsel for respondent No.1 Municipal Corporation, on instructions, submits that the said respondent is ready and willing to take necessary steps to facilitate acquisition of the subject land. It is indicated that the respondent No.1 Corporation is ready to deposit the required percentage of compensation with the land acquisition officer and that, the procedure prescribed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 2013’) can be undertaken at the earliest.

¶29

The petitioner is not averse to his land being acquired, provided he is paid just, fair and reasonable compensation. In such circumstances,

¶30

2/3

¶31

909_WP14998_23.doc

¶32

we are of the opinion that the writ petition can be conveniently disposed of by issuing appropriate directions.

¶33

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of as follows:-

¶34

A. The respondent No.1 - Municipal Corporation and the respondent No.2 - State through the Collector and the concerned Land Acquisition Officer shall take immediate steps for initiating acquisition of the subject land of the petitioner, in accordance with law and the provisions of the Act of 2013;

¶35

B. The process of acquisition shall be initiated forthwith and it shall be completed at the earliest and in any case, within a period of one year from today;

¶36

C. All contentions of the parties are kept open;

¶37

D. As regards the claim of the petitioner that some portion of land belonging to him was already utilized while constructing pillars of the said bridge, this Court is not expressing any opinion and instead, it is kept open for the petitioner to agitate the aforesaid claim, including the claim of rental compensation strictly in accordance with law.

¶38

Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶39

(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.)

¶40

(MANISH PITALE, J.)

¶41

Minal Parab

¶42

3/3

Ankush Mahatu Balwadkar v. Pune Municipal Corporation Assi. Commissioner Pune and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ankush Mahatu Balwadkar v. Pune Municipal Corporation Assi. Commissioner Pune and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Avadhoot Anant Waskar vs State Bank of India

M/S Ganesha Food Processors Throu. Nikhil R Agarwal vs the Land Acquisition Officer and Dy Collector General Administraion and Ors.

Shiv Industries Thr Its Authorized Signatory vs the Land Acquisition Officer and Dy Collector and Ors.

M/S Jamwaymata Trading LLP Throu. Nikhil R Agrawal vs the Land Acquisition Officer and Dy Collector General Administraion and Ors.

M/S Avmit Homes LLP Throu Nikhil R Agrawal vs the Land Acquisition Officer and Dy Collector General Administraion and Ors.

M/S Avmit Homes LLP Throu Nikhil R Agarwal vs the Land Acquisition Officer and Dy Collector General Administraion and Ors.