.{1}. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3048 OF 2006 Shri Changdev Shankar Sargule. ..Petitioner. Versus State of Maharashtra and another. ..Respondents. .... Mr.M.A.Choudhari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Milind More, A.G.P., for the Respondent - State. .... CORAM : J.N. PATEL AND CORAM : J.N. PATEL AND CORAM : J.N. PATEL AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATED : 2ND MARCH, 2009. DATED : 2ND MARCH, 2009. DATED : 2ND MARCH, 2009. P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This Petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission itself. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus or order or directions directing the respondent No.1 to order respondent No.2 to submit report regarding government land available at Kothrud Bibvewadi area or Swargate or any other place or area in Pune city for the purpose of allotment to the petitioner. .{2}. 3. The very foundation of the Petition is on the application made to the Hon’ble Chief Minister by the petitioner for allotment of 5 gunthas of land at Kothrud, Bibvewadi or Swargate or any other area in Pune city on the basis that he is a ex-serviceman and has served the Signal Regiment and he retired from the service in the year, 1964. It is the case of the petitioner that his house got burnt in the riot which took place in the year 1992-1993, for which he has spent Rs.4,00,000/-, but, he got only Rs.4,000/- towards compensation. In response to this application made by the petitioner, the Additional Secretary to then Chief Minister wrote to the concerned authority i.e. Collector, Pune for furnishing information for considering the allocation of the land to the petitioner. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that till filing of the Petition, no steps have been taken. 5. The petitioner has pleaded that in response to the application made by the petitioner for allocation of land to ex-serviceman, by seeking information .{3}. about availability of the land amounts to promissory estoppel on the part of the State and the least can be said that the petitioner has a legitimate expectation for allocation of the land. As regards plea of the petitioner about entitlement of the petitioner to allocation of the land is concerned, it will have to be considered as per the policy of the State Government in this regard. The Court cannot issue a Writ of mandamus or any direction or order to the State Government to allocate land to the petitioner. 6. The only thing the petitioner deserves is that, he should be informed by the State the fate of his application and as there was no response he was constrained to move this Court by invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction. We, therefore, direct the Additional Chief Secretary of Revenue and Forests Department to take decision in the matter on the application made by the petitioner for allocation of the land, in accordance with the policy adopted by the State in respect of allocation of land to ex-servicemen, and communicate its decision to the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date .{4}. of communication of this order. 7. The petitioner to communicate this order to the Additional Chief Secretary, Ministry of Revenue and Forests, Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 8. Petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. [J.N.PATEL,J.] [J.N.PATEL,J.] [J.N.PATEL,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]