ssp 1 LPA 135 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.135 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO.8640 OF 2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.161 OF 2011 Babu Namdeo Kotwal .....Appellant versus The Commissioner, Pune Division and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.R.S.Apte, Senior Advocate i/by Mr.G.M.Savagave, for the appellant. Mr.A.D.Kango, AGP, for the respondent Nos.1 to 5. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE: 28 th JUNE, 2011 P.C. : 1. By way of this appeal, appellant has challenged the order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.8640 of 2010, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant and confirmed the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, which was passed under Section 48(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. 2. The land of the appellant was acquired for rehabilitation of project affected displaced persons. The acquisition proceedings were initiated long back and in the year 1979, an Award was declared under the Land Acquisition Act. As per the record, panchanama was also prepared ssp 2 LPA 135 of 2011 for the purpose of taking possession from the appellant and after considerable time, appellant applied under Section 48(1) of the Act, for withdrawal of the acquisition proceedings. The said application was made by the appellant on 09­10­2001. The Division Commissioner rejected the said application and refused to withdraw the acquisition of the said land, which order was challenged before the learned Single Judge. 3. Learned AGP pointed out that the extract of the panchanama shows that the possession of the land was taken on 27­09­1979. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that panchanama was made ex­parte and he is not signatory to the same. It is required to be noted that subsequently in the revenue record i.e. 7/12 extract, the name of allottee is already mutated, which fact is considered by the learned Single Judge in para No.2 of the order. It is required to be noted that the appellant has never objected the land acquisition proceedings and award was declared long back. As per panchanama, possession was taken long back and the name of allottee is also mentioned in the revenue record. The Divisional Commissioner was therefore, justified in rejecting application for withdrawal, as the said provision is applicable only when possession is not taken away by the Government. We accordingly do not find any substance in the appeal. The Letters ssp 3 LPA 135 of 2011 Patent appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, if any decision is taken by the Divisional Commissioner to allot any other land to the appellant as a displaced person and if appellant is entitled to get the same, the said aspect to be considered expeditiously and in accordance with law. 4. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, civil application No. 161 of 2011 does not survive and the same is disposed of accordingly. ( A.A.SAYED, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )