Shri. Kalgonda Balgonda Patil v. Shri. Ramchandra Dattu Rane And ORS.
(24) WP 1423416 Amk
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 14234 OF 2016 Shri Kalgonda Balgonda Patil .. Petitioner Vs.
Shri Ramchandra Dattu Rane & Ors.
.. Respondents Mr. M. S. Lagu for the Petitioner.
Mr. A. I. Patel, AGP for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4-State. CORAM : R. M. BORDE & V. L. ACHLIYA, JJ.
DATE : 22 nd JANUARY, 2019.
P. C. :
The Petitioner is praying for issuance of directions to Respondent No.2 to return back the land Gat No. 543 admeasuring 2 H 46 R situated at village Aanur, Taluka-Kagal, District-Kolhapur which has already been acquired. It is not a matter of dispute that the aforesaid land has been acquired by the State Government long back i.e. in the year 1989 and mutation entry in that regard has been recorded in the name of Deputy Collector (Resettlement) on 05.04.1990. The aforesaid land has been subsequently allotted to the project affected person by name Dattu Gundu Rane, deceased through his legal heirs Gundu Dattu Rane. The Petitioner presented Petition bearing Writ Petition No. 8880 of 2014 in this Court seeking direction to decide the representation preferred by him and to take appropriate action against the allottee on account of violation of conditions of allotment. It was urged by the Petitioner before the Division Bench of 1/2
(24) WP 1423416 this Court, that the Respondent/allottee has violated conditions of allotment and as such land shall have to be resumed by State Government. Considering the argument advanced by the Petitioner, the Division Bench of this Court while disposing of the Writ Petition directed the Respondents to consider the application and pass appropriate orders. So far as the prayer made by the Petitioner in respect of taking steps against the allottee is concerned, the same has been considered by State and the subject land has been re-allotted in favour of one Ramchandra Patil.
So far as the prayer of the Petitioner for return of the landed property is concerned, the Petitioner has failed to point out any provision of law or any rule confirming his entitlement to claim the possession of acquired property after finalisation of acquisition proceedings and after receipt of amount of compensation. Since the order issued by this Court while disposing of Writ Petition No. 8880 of 2015 has been complied, no further orders are required to be issued in the matter. The Petition is devoid of merits and stands dismissed.
[V. L. ACHLIYA, J.] [R. M. BORDE, J.] 2/2