The judgment establishes the principle that the authority of law must be followed, and property rights must be respected, emphasizing the need for due process of law and acquisition of property if construction extends beyond the existing 12-meter width of the road.

JUDGMENT :

S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing.

2. All these writ petitions are based on common set of facts and involve similar issues. To avoid rigmarole are decided by common judgment.

3. The petitioners seek restraint order against the respondents from taking over the possession of the lands without following due procedure of law and payment of compensation.

4. The petitioners contend that the respondents have undertaken work of state road viz. Badnapur-Nanegaon-Jamkhed, Jalna-Ghansawangi and so on. The stand of the respondents appear to be that in the year 1971-72, 10 meter wide road was constructed under Employment Guarantee Scheme (for short “E.G.S.”). The said road is shown as Government track. Now only improvement of the road already in existence is being done. The same is done within the Right of Way (ROW) available under P.W.D. The same is 07 meter carriage way plus 2.5 meters side shoulder in addition to the slope on either side extending to 16 meter.

5. Mr. Tope, the learned counsel for petitioners in Writ Petition No. 4717 of 2019 has canvassed the load arguments. Mr. More, Mr. Pahune Patil, Mr. Witore, Mr. Magar, Mr. Rajput and Mr. Mule echoed the arguments of Mr. Tope.

6. The gravamen of the petitioners contention is that, in the year 1971-72 under the E.G.S. 10 meter wide road was constructed. No compensation was paid at that time. Subsequently, the said road is declared as a State Highway. Though said road is declared as State Highway, the width of the 10 meter road was never expanded. It remained 10 meter wide road. After the road was declared as State Highway, acquisition proceedings were not undertaken. It is illegal on the part of the respondents to contend that, ROW is 30 meter. The respondents cannot deprive the petitioners of their property without due process of law. The petitioners place reliance on Article 300-A of the Constitution of India. The petitioners also rely on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Tukaram Kana Joshi and Others vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation and Others, (2013) 1 SCC 353, so also another judgment of the Apex Court in a case of Vidya Devi vs. The State of Himachal Pradesh dated January 08, 2020 in Civil Appeal No. 60-61 of 2020.

7. Mr. Karlekar, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents submits that, the petitioners admit that, in the year 1971-72, 10 meter wide road was constructed from the land of petitioners under E.G.S. The same is in existence and is in use since then. The said road is upgraded to State Highway standard. The ongoing improvement is for black top of 10 meter and 01 meter murum filling on either side of B.T. The improvement of work would be restricted to the area in possession of the State. The roads are selected for improvement under the Hybrid Annuity Scheme as per circular dated 03.05.2017. The road is being constructed within the ROW available with P.W.D. which is 7 meters carriage way plus 2.5 meter side shoulder in addition to slope on either side which extends to 16 meters. The same is in accordance with the manual of specification standards of IRC (Indian Road Congress and Special Publication 73) (2015). The State Highway is in existence since 2001. It has ROW of 24 meters. The development is done within existing ROW. The land acquisition is not necessary. Reliance is placed on the map to contend that, 16 meter wide road is in possession of respondents since 47 years. The learned A.G.P. relies on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court delivered at the Principal Seat at Bombay dated November 01, 2018 in Writ Petition No. 8057 of 2018 with connected writ petitions.

8. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the learned counsel for respective parties.

9. The respondents/state has filed affidavit in reply in two maters viz. Writ Petition No. 4717 of 2019 and Writ Petition No. 1480 of 2019. The learned A.G.P. submitted th