:1: :1: :1: IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6533 OF 2007 Popat D. Jadhav ...Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. ....Respondents ====== Mr.Uday Warunjikar, Adv. for the petitioners. Ms.V.S.Mhaispurkar, AGP for respondent no.1. Mr. Suresh M.Sabrad, Adv. for respondent no.2. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 4TH MARCH, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. The petitioner has applied to the Authority that a portion adjacent to Gat No. 16 admeasuring 100 sq.mts should be allotted to him for digging a Well and for constructing a pipelines, so that, the petitioner can irrigate the land. :2: :2: :2: 2. The Tahsildar, Chandvad, conducted the necessary Inquiry and thereafter the allotment was made by an Order dated 14.05.1993 for 15 years. That order is by the Additional Collector, Nashik and the terms and conditions of the order are specific. The petitioner has not been given any right in the land but is permitted to enter upon only for the purposes of digging a Well and placing the pipeline. The Authorities noticed that after the allotment, the petitioner has not taken necessary steps to dig a Well and put a pipeline. According to the Collector, the steps having not been taken, the allotment automatically comes to an end. The petitioner applied to the Revisional Authority against the said decision of the Collector and the Revisional Authority has after adverting to all the facts and circumstances, concluded that the land was allotted for a period of 15 years but from 1993 till 2005, it is not used for the purpose for which it is alloted. 3. It may be true as urged by Mr.Warunjikar that the period of 15 years has yet to come to an end. However, the Revisional Authority has observed that :3: :3: :3: from the date of the allotment till the finding of the Collector rendered on 13.06.2005, no steps have been taken by the petitioner to dig the Well and place the pipe-line. Mr.Warunjikar, urges that the petitioner had indeed dug a Well. Today, the position is that there is a sand and Mud covering the said Well and therefore it is not as if the petitioner did not abide by the terms and conditions of the allotment. Further, the petitioner had to face a litigation from the adjoining Land Holder and the matter was pending in the Civil Court. For all these reasons, the petitioner was entitled to atleast a Show Cause Notice and an opportunity of being heard, before the impugned orders were passed. 4. While it may be true that had such an opportunity been granted, the petitioner could have pointed out the above facts and circumstances. However, acceding to the request of Warunjikar of a Remand to the Commissioner or to the Collector would serve no purpose. In the peculiar facts of this case, when the petitioner could not utilise the land/portion, after the diging activity was carried out by him allegedly :4: :4: :4: means that the purpose of allotment itself is defeated. In such matters, the substance must be looked into rather than the form. The Authorities who are incharge of Water supply and Drinking Water Scheme, so also, those incharge of allotments of lands are best Judges of the situation. Once they find that the specific condition on which the land has been allotted has not been fulfilled, then, giving another opportunity to the petitioner would serve no purpose. It is undisputed that there is no Well. What steps the petitioner took for the past 14 years is of no relevance. There must be some expediency and sense of urgency when such allotments are sought and granted. Public interest is paramount in such matters. The petitioner cannot claim any right once he was unable to abide by the terms and conditions. I see no reason to interfere with such findings in writ jurisdiction. Apart from the fact that the court does not possess any expertise in such matters, even it has its own limitation in writ jurisdiction. There is no question of re-appreciating and re-appraising the factual materials. There is no substance in this Writ Petition and therefore it is dismissed. No costs. :5: :5: :5: sd/- *********