- (1.) RAVI S. Dhavan and V. P. Goel, JJ. This writ petition is of the year 1980. It has remained pending at the High Court for seventeen years. In between what has hap pened is that both petitioner and counsel for the petitioner have died. On the death of the petitioner, an application was moved to substitute the name of the petitioner with one Munir Khan son of Late Magan Khan resident of 10/10 Kanpur Road, Allahabad. The substitution was permitted on 19-2-1997. The petitioner so substituted is repre sented by counsel, one Mr. U. S. Misra, Ad vocate, but Counsel for the petitioner has sent an illness slip. As this is a matter pend ing for seventeen years, it cannot be ad journed. In the circumstances, upon perus ing the record, the Court is rendering its opinion.
(2.) THE writ which the petitioner seeks cannot be granted. The issues which the petitioners raise are that at a certain road crossing, of two public roads, the respondents as a mat ter of policy have sought to possess the corner of each property at the inter- section for the purposes of putti a traffic island and widening the road tor safety of the citizens and eliminate the hazard of a blind crossing or inter-section. The inter-section is where the two public roads, Kanpur Road and Stratchey Road cross each other. This would in addition control and speed of the vehicular traffic. This policy of local plan ning was announced as a measure of safety for pedestrians and occupants of vehicular traffic. There was no pick and choose re quiring any bungalow owner or plot holder is being required to surrender a corner of his inter-section plot. The contention of the petitioner is that the lease, so granted to the original owner i. e. the petitioners who had filed the petition, had its duration until the year 1989 and, thus, the area should be demarcated in accordance with the original lease notwithstanding the fact that the four corner plots had to be surrendered for road widening and a traffic island. There is noth ing wrong in the policy of the respondent as it is reasonable and in the public interest as part of public planning. There was a little error in the respondent's act where instead of taking the corner plot and making a traffic island out of it, they also intended to construct shops so as to frustrate the petitioner's plan to con struct shops in the area to be surrendered. On the boundary demarcation next to the, road, in the present, case no one can con struct. Thus, the petitioners contend in the writ petition that any shop a that the respon dent will make on the corner area which was reserved for road widening and traffic island is obstructing his ingress and egress. The Court is of the opinion that both, the petitioners and respondent, are incorrect. The petitioners cannot fault the respont if the four corners of each plot at the inter section of the, aforesaid, two public roads are reserved for road widening and a traffic island. The area of the lease under the grant will standard reduced, accordingly, for all four plot holders without discrimination.
(3.) THUS with this declaration the peti tion is consigned to the record, but formally as dismissed. The interim order dated 6-6-1980 confirmed on 16-7-1980 is discharged with neither party having claim to construct on the area reserved for road widening.;