1 914-wp-2390-2025.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2390 OF 2025 Shri Badriprasad S. Trivedi ...Petitioner versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. … Respondents …… Mr.Sandeep Mishra for the Petitioner. Mrs.Neha S. Bhide, Government Pleader with Mr.P.P.Kakade, Addl.GP for the Respondent, the State. Mr.Mandar Limaye for Respondent Nos. 2 to 6, the Municipal Corporation. …... CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, ACJ & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. DATE : 28 AUGUST, 2026 P.C.: 1. The Petitioner contends that his entire structure in the road- widening was not demolished. One small portion was kept secured. It was handed over to a politician. He prays for the return of the said premises. 2. The learned Advocate for the Corporation has filed an affidavit-in-reply through the Assistant Municipal Commissioner, dated Trupti S. Bamne TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE Digitally signed by TRUPTI SADANAND BAMNE Date: 2026.08.29 11:26:24 +0530 2 914-wp-2390-2025.odt 28.08.2026. The Corporation has taken a stand that the entire structure of the Petitioner was demolished in the road-widening project. An alternate accommodation has been offered to the Petitioner. The Petitioner himself has placed the offer letter dated 14.10.2024 on record, at page No. 122 of the Petition paper book. He is not willing to accept the said alternate accommodation. 3. We find that the Petitioner had earlier approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 2717 of 2023. In the order dated 02.05.2024 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the statement made by the Petitioner, through the same Advocate who is appearing before us today, was recorded in paragraph No. 3, wherein the Petitioner contended that he would be entitled to an alternate accommodation or adequate compensation as per the policy of Respondent No. 2 in respect of the road-widening scheme. 4. The position is, thus, clear before us that the Petitioner does not desire to accept the offer of alternate accommodation. This Court would, therefore, not get into the disputed issues. The Petitioner himself had stated in the earlier Writ Petition that he desired alternate Trupti S. Bamne 3 914-wp-2390-2025.odt accommodation, which indicates that the structure occupied by him was demolished in the road-widening project. 5. In view of the above, since the Petitioner does not desire to accept the alternate accommodation, the option to seek compensation from the Corporation, is kept open to the Petitioner. All contentions in this context are kept open. 6. This Writ Petition is disposed off. (GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.) (ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) Trupti S. Bamne