-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.4503 of 2007 M/s Rajas Engineering Corporation ..Petitioner vs. 1. The State of Maharashtra and others ..Respondents Shri P.K.Dhakephalkar, Sr.Advocate i/b Shri R.S.Kate for petitioner. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. CORAM: S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 4th February, 2008 4th February, 2008 4th February, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard Shri Dhakephalkar,learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Perused the allotment order along with condition no.13 therein, the letter addressed by the petitioners and the impugned orders. 2. The concurrent findings are that the petitioner was granted piece/parcel of land more particularly described in the allotment order. Condition no. 13 in the allotment order, issued as early as on 24th August, 1981 is that the strycture should be constructed and used for the exclusive purpose for which it is allotted within a period of 3 years from the date the possession is handed over to the petitioner. -2- Admittedly, for 3 years nothing has been done. Tahsildar, Pune has given a report on 11th September, 1997 pointing out that there is only a tin shed admeasuring 3.90 x 2.70 and remaining land is vacant. In such circumstances, notice was issued to the petitioner as to why the allotment should not be cancelled. The notice was replied to and having found that explanation is unsatisfactory, the authority granted personal hearing to the petitioner. He was unsuccessful at the initial stage so also at the appellate stage and the revisional stage. Each of these authorities have found that there is non compliance with condition no.13. None disputes the fact that under the terms of allotment it is open to the Government to resume the land. The petitioner’s request for extension of time limit of 3 years was sanctioned once and there is a clear reference to the order dated 6th May, 1989 in that behalf. Even thereafter the activities could not commence at site. Thus, the Tahsildar after waiting for 15 long years made the subject report. 3. It is in such circumstances that I find that the order of Minister of Revenue at the -3- revisional stage concurring with the Commissioner, Pune and that of other authorities cannot be said to be vitiated by error apparent or perversity so as to call for any interference in my extra ordinary, equitable and discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition is dismissed. (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)