1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2817 OF 2007 Purushottam s/o Narayanrao Deshpande ... PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri A.G. Godhamgaonkar, Advocate for the petitioner Shri V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3 Shri P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 5 ..... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & N.D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATED: 9th July, 2010 PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner places reliance on a compromise terms arrived at by the parties annexed at Exh. 5. The counsel for the petitioner Shri Godhamgaonkar submits that, this compromise purshis could not be filed in any proceedings in the High Court. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent has drawn our attention to a judgment and order delivered by Division Bench of the 2 Bombay High Court (Coram : Chandurkar & Deshpande, JJ.) dated 13.7.1979 in Special Civil Application No.79/1975. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, based on the compromise terms, the Tahsildar, Bhokar passed order on 28.8.1985 in File No.1985/RB-CR-102. The operative portion of the order has placed on record which reads as under : "The name of non-applicant entered in the cultivation coll. for the year 1984-95 regarding the S.No.166 (G.No.389) Admeasuring 9 H. 52 R. L.R. of Rs.11.14 of village Bhokar be struck off and thename of the applicant Shri Purushottam s/o Narayanrao Deshpande be entered in it. The Talathi be directed to make correction accordingly." 5. This Court had issued notice on 2.7.2007 confined to the prayer clauses E and F only. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, this petition be allowed in terms of prayer clause F as there is no other remedy for the petitioner to seek such a declaration to the effect that the petitioner is owner and possessor of the subject land and he is entitled to retain it as if no declaration either under the Tenancy Act or the Ownership or of the Grant of Occupancy right in 3 respect of the subject land is made by the revenue authorities. 6. This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. We have perused the relevant orders and documents placed on record. We find that, in the light of the facts of the case and the documents placed on record, as on today, such declaration in favour of petitioner, in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction, is not warranted. In case the petitioner is entitled for such reliefs, the petitioner may resort to appropriate, alternate remedies as permissible in law. We do not express any opinion on the merits of the claim of the contesting parties. 7. Writ Petition stands disposed of. (N.D. DESHPANDE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.) fmp/wp2817.07