ssp 1 WP 677 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.677 OF 2011 Dhiresh Kantilal Bafna and Ors. .....Petitioners versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.J.S.Deo, for the petitioners. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP, for respondents. CORAM: P.B.MAJMUDAR & A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATE: 18th FEBRUARY, 2011. P.C. : 1. By way of this petition, petitioners have prayed that the notice issued by the Corporation in connection with taking possession of the properties of the petitioners, may be set aside. The grievance of the petitioners is that for the purpose of widening of the road, properties of the petitioners are sought to be acquired, but unless possession of some other adjoining properties is taken, the purpose of the Corporation may not be served. 2. It is required to be noted that initially petitioner had filed Writ Petition No.4385 of 2008 before this Court challenging the land acquisition proceedings. This Court vide its order dated 24th August, ssp 2 WP 677 of 2011 2010, to which one of us (A.A.Sayed, J.) was a party, rejected the petition by holding that the legality of the acquisition proceedings cannot be challenged in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court also found that the suit filed by the petitioners was also dismissed. 3. In view of the dismissal of the writ petition, the Corporation gave notice for handing over the possession to the petitioners in view of the land acquisition proceedings, which notice is challenged herein by way of this petition. In our view, once challenge to the land acquisition proceedings is turned down by this Court, subsequent petition challenging notice for taking possession cannot be entertained. Possession of which portion should be taken first, is entirely left to the wisdom of the Corporation and this Court cannot give Mandamus in this behalf. Since the land acquisition proceedings have become final and the notice has been issued for taking possession by virtue of the land acquisition proceedings, the prayer made in the petition cannot be granted. The writ petition is accordingly rejected. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that he would like to make representation to the Corporation. The said statement is recorded. If any representation is made, it is for the Corporation to decide the same in accordance with law and as deemed fit and we are not ssp 3 WP 677 of 2011 expressing any opinion on this aspect. ( A.A.SAYED, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )