JUDGMENT F.I.REBELLO, J.: Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. Petitioners have approached this Court contending that petitioner no.1 has constructed a building with due licence from the Gram Panchayat. Similarly, the others petitioners contend that they have also purchased the properties and have constructed buildings with due permission. These buildings are constructed adjacent to "Daithan-Ashti-Sawangi Road". 3. It is the case of the petitioners that Respondent No.3 has issued a notice dated 18.1.2007 to all the petitioners informing that they want to carry out the work of road widening of Daithan-Ashti-Sawangi Road and to remove the encroachments on the said Government road within seven days from the date of the said notice. That notice was received by the petitioners on 24.1.2008. Some of the petitioners did not receive the said notice in their personal capacity. 4. The petitioners have filed a representation in the office of Respondent no.2 on 28.1.2008 with a request not to demolish their houses as they have purchased the property from original owners. The petitioners contend that if the respondents want to extend the road from both the sides, they have to acquire the land under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act and by paying compensation and by following due process the road could be widened. According to the petitioners, the existing road was constructed in the year 1972. The respondents cannot suddenly demolish their buildings, which include houses and hospitals, by exercising the power of eminent domain. In the instant case, even the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act have not yet been commenced. 5. The petitioners have impugned the notice dated 18.1.2008 on the ground that the respondents have no power to remove and or to demolish the buildings belonging to the petitioners without acquiring the land. Any suchaction, it is submitted, would be arbitrary and illegal. The respondents have also not given a show cause notice to the petitioners prior to issuance of the notice of demolition. There is, therefore, infraction of the principles of natural justice and fair play. 6. The respondents have filed their reply through Laxman Shankarrao Suryawanshi, Sub Divisional Officer, Public Works Sub Division, Partur. The road referred to earlier, it is set out, is notified as a State High Way No.174(A) as per the Road Development Plan 1981-2001 and 2001 - 2021. There is, therefore, infraction of the principles of natural justice and fair play. 6. The respondents have filed their reply through Laxman Shankarrao Suryawanshi, Sub Divisional Officer, Public Works Sub Division, Partur. The road referred to earlier, it is set out, is notified as a State High Way No.174(A) as per the Road Development Plan 1981-2001 and 2001 - 2021. The said Highway connects Jalna and Beed districts and around 1400 meters length of this road passes through village Ashti. The Executive Engineer, P.W.D.No.2, Jalna is the custodian of the said road as per the Bombay Highways Act, 1955. As per the Government Resolution dated 9.3.2001, the road land for the said Highway is 30 meter, whereas the building line for the said road is 20 meters from the road center in urban areas and 40 meters from the road center in Rural areas. The control line is 37 meters and 50 meters respectively. Therefore, the State High Way No. 174(A) has a road land width of 30 meters (100 ft.) and the building line is of 20 meters from the road center. Ashti village being from the rural area, the building line is required to be kept at 40 meters (110 ft.) from the center of the road. 7. There is a proposal of improvement of the said road from Central Government funds under the Central Road Fund Scheme (CRFS). In view of this, the Executive Engineer, PWD, Jalna, who is custodian of the said road has undertaken a survey and found that there are several properties which are constructed in contravention of the building line. The Executive Engineer has thus sought removal of the encroachments within the road width. In the light of that decision, the deponent has issued the aforesaid notices to the petitioners, requiring them to remove the encroachments and this is within the powers vested in him under the provisions of the Bombay Highways Act, 1955. 8. To the averment by the petitioners that proceedings have not been initiated for acquisition of land, it is set out that the road passes through Government land which is in possession of the Gram Panchayat and as such there is no question of initiation of land acquisition proceedings. The land always vested in the Government and the Gram Panchayat may have leased the land in favour of the petitioners. The land always vested in the Government and the Gram Panchayat may have leased the land in favour of the petitioners. Such transactions are contrary to the Bombay High Ways Act, 1955 and the Rules framed thereunder. Similarly, the said transaction being contrary to the Act can confer or pass no valid title in favour of such owners. As there is heavy traffic on the said road, it is desirable in the public interest to have the easy access of traffic through the said village. The notices, it is submitted, are issued in public interest and the petitioners being encroachers have no legal right nor can they claim compensation. 9. The issue, therefore, for consideration is whether the respondents could have acted under the provisions of the Bombay High Ways Act, 1955, and if that be so, what is the remedy at law for the petitioners. 10 The Bombay Highways Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) is a State legislation and as its preamble indicates, provides for the restriction of ribbon development along highways, for the prevention and removal of encroachment thereon, for the construction, maintenance and development of highways, for the levy of betterment charges and for certain other matters. The Act extends to the whole of State of Maharashtra. Section 1(3) sets out that this section shall be in force in the whole State and the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that all or any of the remaining provisions of this Act shall come into force in such area and on such date as may be specified in the notification. There is also proviso, conferring power on the State Government to exclude any road or way or class of roads or ways situate in such area from the operation of all or any of the provisions of this Act. It is not the case of the petitioners that the provisions of the Act have not been brought into force. 11. Section 2 provides for definitions. "building" is defined under Section 2(b). It is not the case of the petitioners that the provisions of the Act have not been brought into force. 11. Section 2 provides for definitions. "building" is defined under Section 2(b). "Building line" is defined under Section 2(c) and reads as under : "2(c) "Building line" means a line on either side of any highway or part of a highway fixed in respect of such highway or part by notification under sub-section (1) of Section 7." "Control line" has been defined under Section 2(e) to mean a line on either side of a highway or part of a highway beyond the building line fixed in respect of such highway or part by a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 7. "Highway" has been defined to mean any road, way or land which is declared to be a highway under section 3. "Highway boundaries" means the boundaries of a highway fixed in respect of such highway by a notification under sub-section (1) of Section 7. "Encroachment" has also been defined to mean any unauthorized occupation of any highway or part thereof, and includes an unauthorized erection of a building or any other structure, balconies, porches, projections on or over or overhanging the highway. 12. As already noted, in the reply filed on behalf of the respondents, the road in question has been notified as a State Highway under Section 3 of the Act. Section 5 confers powers on the State Government or the Highway Authority to exercise and discharge duties in accordance with the provisions of the Act to restrict the ribbon development along the highways, for the prevention and removal of encroachments and for all matters necessary and incidental to any or all the subjects. Under Section 7, whenever the provisions of the Act brought into force, the State Government is to fix in respect of such highway, the highway boundary, the building line or control line. In terms of the affidavit filed by the respondents, this has been done. Under Section 9, after the appointed day, there are restrictions on constructing buildings between highway boundary and building line and building line and control line. Permission has to be obtained from the Highway Authorities as set out therein. There is mechanism for appeal if applicant aggrieved by the action of the Highway authorities in withholding permission or imposing any condition. Under Section 9, after the appointed day, there are restrictions on constructing buildings between highway boundary and building line and building line and control line. Permission has to be obtained from the Highway Authorities as set out therein. There is mechanism for appeal if applicant aggrieved by the action of the Highway authorities in withholding permission or imposing any condition. It is not necessary to refer to several other provisions, except to those which would be relevant. 13. The Act confers power under Section 15 to acquire the land needed for public purpose under the Act. Under the provisions of this Act, the procedure for acquisition is also set out. There are provisions for hearing objections and Section 18 is the provision for declaration of acquisition that the said land is required for public purpose and determination of compensation and determination of disputes as to apportionment. In other words the Act by itself is a self contained Code in the matter of acquisition of land for a Highway. Section 19E excludes the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. 14. To decide the present controversy, the relevant provisions which fall under Chapter-IV, particularly Sections 23 and 24 of the Act have to be considered. Section 23 of the Act, confers power on the Highway authorities, to direct removal of the encroachment on highway, by issuing a notice to the person concerned. The notice must specify the land encroached upon and time limit within which the encroachments have to be removed and shall also state that on failure to comply within the specified period shall, render the person liable to prosecution and also to summary eviction. On failure to comply with the notice issued under Section 23(1), it is open to the Highway authority or the authorized officer to prosecute the person before the appropriate Magistrate for having made or caused the encroachment and for his failure to remove it within the specified time. The other sub-sections provide for removal on various other kinds of encroachments and or when the encroachments require immediate removal. 15. Section 24 of the Act provides for appeal against a notice issued under Section 23(1). Section 24 reads as under : "24. The other sub-sections provide for removal on various other kinds of encroachments and or when the encroachments require immediate removal. 15. Section 24 of the Act provides for appeal against a notice issued under Section 23(1). Section 24 reads as under : "24. Where the person on whom notice to remove an encroachment has been served under sub-section (1) of Section 23 lays claim that the land in respect of which encroachment has been alleged is his property or that he has acquired a right over it by virtue of adverse possession or otherwise he shall within the time limit prescribed in the notice for the removal of the encroachment, file an appeal before the Collector under intimation to the Highway Authority or the Officer authorized under sub-section (1) of Section 21, as the case may be. The Collector shall after due enquiry record his decision in writing and communicate the same to the appellant and the Highway Authority or such officer. The Highway Authority to such officer shall till then desist from taking further action in the matter." On consideration of the pleadings and the provisions of the Act, it is clear that the notice which is impugned in this petition is dated 18.1.2008 and which has been issued pursuant to the powers conferred under Section 23(1) of the Act. It is not the contention of the petitioners before us that the road in question has not been notified as a State Highway and or that no Highway Authority has been appointed and or that the building line and the control line have not been defined. The respondents have annexed with their reply the notifications in support of their contention that it is the State Highway Authority. Reference is also made to the notification dated 13.1.1977 issued by Ministry of Shipping and Transport (Road Wing) New Delhi, in the matter of land with different classes of road. Land Plan of the road is also annexed. It, therefore, cannot be said that the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned notice is without jurisdiction. 16. It is not the case of the petitioners that their construction had come up after obtaining the permission of the Highway Authority. Land Plan of the road is also annexed. It, therefore, cannot be said that the action of the respondents in issuing the impugned notice is without jurisdiction. 16. It is not the case of the petitioners that their construction had come up after obtaining the permission of the Highway Authority. Considering the provisions of Section 9 of the Act, the notice, therefore, prima facie was within jurisdiction and cannot be said to be an arbitrary exercise of power and or in violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play. Section 23 itself provides the mechanism and the procedure for serving a notice and remedy which an aggrieved party can resort to. It is not as if on service of the notice that the Highway Authority has immediate power to remove the encroachment, except as to the manner, set out in sub-sections (4)(5) and (6) of Section 23 of the Act. We are therefore of the opinion that the notice cannot be said to be nullity at law which would result in invoking our extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 17. On service of the notice, the dispute as to whether the lands of the petitioners would fall within the building line or control line will have to be decided along with other objections. These are questions of fact, which cannot be decided by the High Court. Section 24 of the Act provides a remedy by way of appeal against a notice issued under Section 23(1) of the Act. It will therefore be open to the petitioners to take recourse to the remedy available to them under law. This Court, at the highest, considering the interim relief granted earlier, in order to enable the petitioners to move the appellate forum, i.e. Highway Authority, can continue the interim relief for a further period till the disposal of the appeals. 18. In the light of the above, considering that there is an alternate remedy available to the petitioners and as the Highway Authority is exercising the powers, vested in it by law, has issued the notice which is within jurisdiction, no relief can be granted to the petitioners, except to the extent of what we have stated as a measure of interim protection. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners makes a statement that the petitioners would prefer an appeal within six weeks. Statement accepted. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners makes a statement that the petitioners would prefer an appeal within six weeks. Statement accepted. In the meantime, the respondents are directed not to take any action against the petitioners on the basis of the impugned notice. 19. Rule discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.