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 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 573 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 573 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 573 OF 2008 Jaywant Raghoba Parab. .. Petitioner. vs. The Secretary, Urban development Department & Anr. .. Respondents. Mr. A. V. Chatuphale for Petitioner. Mr. V.P. Malvankar, AGP., for respondent nos.1 & 2. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE: 6TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE: 6TH FEBRUARY, 2008. DATE: 6TH FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C. Heard. 2. This petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission itself. The petitioner has approached this court for a writ to quash and set aside the order dated 1.4.2006 in so far as it relates to the recovery of the consideration at the prevalent market rate of the year 2006 in respect of the excess land admeasuring 217.50 sq. mtrs. amounting to Rs. 5,65,500/- with the direction to the respondent to fix the consideration of the surplus land prevailing in the year 1993 when it was held to be surplus. In the alternative the petitioner has sought a direction to 2 the respondents to dispose of the application of the petitioner dated 31.5.2006 on the same lines and by granting sanction under Section 44 (1) of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 of the said Act modifying its order and reducing the surplus area from 330 sq. mtrs. to 217.50 sq. mtrs. by order dated 23.1.2006 and calling upon the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,65,500/- as per the prevailing market value of the surplus land. Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent no.1 on 31.5.2006, but, the same has not been considered. Therefore, in our view, the petition can be disposed of by allowing the prayer made by the petitioner in the alternative i.e. to direct the respondents to dispose of the application of the petitioner dated 31.5.2006 within a specific period. 3. We, therefore, dispose of this petition with the direction to the respondent no. 1 to decide the application of the petitioner made to respondent no. 1 on 31.5.2006 in accordance with law and by following the principles of natural justice within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. The petitioner to communicate this order to respondent no. 1. 4. Petition stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) 3 (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.) (Smt. Nishita Mhatre, J.)