WP.1730-90 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 1730 OF 1990 Ramrao Govind Desai ...Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents *** Mr. S. V. Sadavarte, for the Petitioner. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and 5(b) to 5(e). Mr. D. A. Nalavade, for the Respondent No. 5. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : JANUARY 5, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned AGP appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 to 4 and 5(b) to 5(e), and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune in Rehabilitation Revision Application No. 1139 of 1988. By the said order dated 27th December, 1989, the Additional Commissioner was pleased to set aside the order passed in review, by the Collector and allowed the application WP.1730-90 - 2 - filed by the Project Affected Person, respondent No. 5 herein. 2. The brief facts are that respondent No. 5 was declared to be a Project Affected Person and an area of 1H-98R was directed to be given in lieu of the land, which was acquired by the Government. The Collector initially passed an order in favour of respondent No.5 and thereafter the petitioner herein handed over possession of his surplus land, and respondent No.5 took possession of the said land and started cultivating the said land. The entries were also made in the revenue record. Thereafter the petitioner filed a Review Petition before the Collector and the Collector in the said review set aside the earlier order. 3. It was firstly submitted that a suit was filed by respondent No.5 in the Civil Court and in the said Suit, an affidavit & written- statement has been filed by the Government, in which it was alleged that respondent No.5 is not a Project Affected Person. It was, therefore, submitted that since the Government had now filed a written statement in support of the petition, the impugned order was liable to be set aside. The learned counsel has taken me through the judgment and order passed by the Additional Commissioner and has invited my attention to the grounds of challenge, which are mentioned in paragraph 13. In my view, there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Additional WP.1730-90 - 3 - Commissioner. It is an admitted position that possession was handed over by the petitioner to respondent No.5; entries were also made in the revenue record. After the order was given effect to, the Collector should not have reviewed the said order. The remedy, if any, available to the petitioner, was to challenge the order passed by the Collector by filing an appeal or revision before the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune. No interim order was passed at the interim stage. In my view, it is not possible to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Additional Collector, Pune Division, Pune. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. [ V. M. KANADE J.]