1 lpa 99-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 99 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 425 OF 2011 Dhondiram Krishna Hake ...Appellant vs. The Collector, Sangli & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Apte i/b. Mr.Mandar Limaye for the Appellant. Mr.P.D. Dalvi for Respondent Nos.8 to 11. Mr.V.S. Gokhale, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 7. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE AND U.D. SALVI, JJ. MAY 4, 2011 P.C :- 1 Decision of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.425 of 2011 is brought in question in the present appeal. 2 Having lost series of legal battles, challenging acquisition of his land and consequent Award under Section 12 of the Land Acquisition Act passed in the year 1989, upto the Apex Court, the 2 lpa 99-2011 petitioner filed a suit challenging the acquisition proceedings, lost again, and thereafter filed an application under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act for deletion of the said land from the acquisition on the ground that the possession of the land had not been taken. The said application was also dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, on 8 th August, 2000. Review sought by the petitioner of this order proved to be futile. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties and upon considering the record of the case dismissed the writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No.425 of 2011 preferred against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, dated 8 th August, 2000. 3 Learned Advocate Apte submitted that the possession of the land in question had remained in the hands of the petitioner, and this fact was misconstrued by the forums below despite the orders of the civil court to maintain status quo in respect of possession passed against the acquiring 3 lpa 99-2011 authorities in pending Special Suit being RCS No.25 of 1999 instituted in the court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sangli, challenging the acquisition proceedings by the petitioner-appellant. 4 It is pointed out by the learned Advocate Dalvi representing the contesting respondents no.8 to 11 that the land in question was allotted to them as project affected persons after its possession was taken from the appellant-petitioner in the year 1989; and as such, the application under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act was misconceived and not maintainable in law. 5 The learned Single Judge in his order dated 11 th April, 2011, which is subject matter of this appeal, on perusal of the record made the following observations :- 4. Mr.Apte, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner tried to point out that 4 lpa 99-2011 the possession, in fact, is with the petitioner. He relied upon the proceedings filed in the civil Court by respondent Nos.8 to 11 and the findings recorded therein. However, in my view, it is for the petitioner to prove his possession positively in order to maintain application under section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. I have perused the Kabjepatti Report dated 23 rd July, 1998. The land in question belonging to the petitioner has already been acquired and the possession has already been taken by the Resettlement Officer. The petitioner having failed in challenge to the acquisition proceeding, now, resorted to the proceeding under section 48 which was held not maintainable and in the absence of petitioner s possession in respect of the said land, I do not find any error in the findings recorded by the authority below. Petition is, thus, dismissed. 5 Be that as it may, the order of status quo would only mean status quo in relation to the actual facts. The observations made by the learned Single Judge reveal that the possession of the land in question was not actually in the hands of the present appellant. Moreover, the land in question has been allotted to the project affected persons 5 lpa 99-2011 upon its acquisition and possession being taken by the Resettlement Officer vide Kabjepatti Report dated 23.7.1998. Significantly, the petitioner did not whisper about any contempt action being initiated against Resettlement Officer or acquiring authority impleaded to the said suit for the alleged Breach of order of status quo. Learned Single Judge therefore did not fall in error either factual or legal while passing the impugned order. No interference is, therefore, warranted in the order dated 11 th April, 2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 425/2011. 6 Hence, rejected. 7 At this stage, continuation of the status quo order granted earlier in Writ Petition No. 425/2011 is solicited. In order to enable the appellant to approach the higher forum, status quo order granted earlier shall remain operative for a period of four weeks from this date. 6 lpa 99-2011 (U.D. SALVI, J.) (D.B. BHOSALE, J.)