1 425.11-wp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 425 OF 2011 Dhondiram Krishna Hake. ... Petitioner. V/s. The Collector, Sangli & ors. ... Respondents. R.S.Apte, Senior Advocate with Mandar Limaye for the petitioner. R.M.Patne, AGP for respondent Nos.1 to 6. P.D.Dalvi for respondent Nos.8 to 11. CORAM : R.V.MORE, J. DATED : 11th April 2011. P.C. : Heard Mr.Apte, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 6 and Mr.Dalvi, learned counsel for respondent Nos.8 to 11. 2. The petitioner’s land came to be acquired by initiating proceeding under the Land Acquisition Act and an award under section 12 thereof was passed in the year 1989. This award was challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No.3336/1989 which came to be rejected vide order dated 16th November 1994. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court by filing S.L.P. However, the same was also dismissed vide order dated 27th March 1995. The petitioner, thereafter, filed suit challenging acquisition proceeding. The said suit also came to be dismissed. The petitioner, thereafter, filed an application in the year 1997 under section 48 of sanjay 2 425.11-wp the Land Acquisition Act. The said application came to be dismissed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division vide his order dated 8th August, 2000. The petitioner sought review of this order. This review was also dismissed on 4th October 2006. The land was already acquired by the Resettlement Officer and the said land was allotted to respondent Nos.8 to 11. 3. The learned Commissioner in his order dated 4th October 2006 has categorically recorded finding that the possession of land was taken from the petitioner in the year 1989 and the same was allotted to the project affected persons viz. respondent Nos.8 to 11 herein. The Government has also filed affidavit in this petition. In para-3 of the affidavit in reply it is stated as under: “.....I say it is true that the said land was acquired and the possession was already handover to the acquisition body (District Resettlement Officer, Sangli) and acquisition body already allotted the same to the project affected persons. Hence. At present the revenue record reflects names of project affected persons.” 4. Mr.Apte, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner tried to point out that 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 23rd July, 1998 The land in question belonging to the petitioner has already been acquired and the possession has already been 3 425.11-wp 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. Mr.Apte, at this stage, seeks continuation of the status-quo order granted earlier. The prayer made is opposed by the respondents. However, in the interest of justice, in order to enable the petitioner to approach higher forum, status-quo order granted earlier shall remain operative for a period of two weeks from today. (R.V.MORE, J.)