1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4488 OF 2009. Smt. Gunwantibai wd/o Umarsi Lodya and another -: VERSUS :- Sate of Maharashtra and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 16, 2010. Heard Shri Anjan De, learned counsel for petitioners, Shri Patel, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos.1 to 3 and Shri M.G. Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel with Shri R.M. Bhangde, learned counsel for respondent no.4. Challenge is to order dated 08.05.2009 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati in Appeal under Section 257 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, whereby the said Authority has found that in view of the earlier adjudication on 10.08.1990 and 03.01.1991, the order passed by the Collector, Akola on 31.03.1994 was unsustainable. Not only this, it has also applied its mind 2 independently and found that the present petitioners [respondent nos. 2 and 3 before it] do not own any land at that place and entire land is acquired by the M.S.E.B. It has also found that their predecessor in title had also infact demanded compensation for said land. Contention of Shri De, learned counsel is that the entire appreciation is misconceived because it presumes that land of petitioners is also acquired by M.S.E.B. He has therefore, invited attention to the Award dated 30.06.1959 delivered by the Sub Divisional Officer and by the Land Acquisition Officer at Murtizapur to show that the award itself clearly show that there was no demarcation on spot and the extent of land held by the original owners was therefore not clear. According to him, this confusion has never been resolved and respondent no.4 is taking advantage of said position. Shri Patel, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1 as also Shri Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel for respondent no. have relied upon the earlier adjudication as mentioned in the impugned order on two occasions with contention that the said adjudication could not have been reopened again. Attention is also invited to the order dated 18.06.2005 by which layout of respondent no.4 has been sanctioned. It is 3 pointed out that the said order was questioned in further appeals and revisions unsuccessfully and then Writ Petition filed before this Court vide Writ Petition No. 959/2008 was withdrawn with liberty on 20.01.2009. After that liberty on 10.02.2010 the Deputy Director of Land Records, Amravati Region has again rejected the appeal and in this background, the learned Senior Counsel states that at the most the question of identity of the property arises, which cannot be resolved by this Court. With the assistance of respective counsel for the parties, I have perused the relevant records. The award pointed out by Shri De, learned counsel, shows that there was some confusion about the demarcation of respective properties, however, that at the most may give rise to some dispute on facts. The consideration of controversy in this background in impugned order by the Additional Commissioner is neither erroneous nor perverse. There is no jurisdictional error. I am therefore, not inclined to interfere with the matter in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is therefore dismissed. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.