1 Lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3281 OF 2010 Shri Pushpashil Dhairshil Shelke & ors. : Petitioners. Versus State of Maharashtra & ors. : Respondents. Mr. Prathamesh Bhargude for the Petitioners. Smt. M P Thakur, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 to 6. CORAM : A. M. KHANWILKAR, R. M. SAVANT, JJ. DATED : 29th April 2010 P.C. : 1 Heard counsel for the Parties. 2 The Petitioners have approached this Court on the assertion that although the land in question was the subject matter of acquisition, however, the Petitioners are still in possession thereof and for that reason the authority may be directed to consider the Petitioners’ request for withdrawal of the land in question from acquisition under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act. 3 The fact that the Petitioners are still in possession has been disputed by the Respondents. The original record of the District Resettlement Officer, Satara has been produced before us, which shows that the possession of the land in question was taken as back as on 16 th December 2001 and thereafter the land has been allotted to the private Respondent and handed over to him on 19 th January 2002. 2 4 The counsel for the Petitioners, however, relies on the documents on Page 83 and Page 75. The document on page 83 is an order passed by the Resettlement Officer allotting the land bearing Gut Nos. 240/3 and 279/2 to the private Respondent. The document on page No.75 is a Mutation Entry which not only refers to the said two plots but also other plots. Relying on the said Mutation Entry it is contended that the private Respondent has been allotted more than one plots which was not his entitlement. Even if this contention were to be accepted, the question which has been brought before us and the relief claimed by the Petitioners to the effect that the acquisition proceedings in respect of the land in question be ordered to be withdrawn cannot be answered in favour of the Petitioners. 5 Our attention was also invited to the stay order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune dated 2 nd January 2007 passed on the application filed by the Petitioners dated 6 th October 2006. The said order is obviously passed without verifying the record of the District Resettlement Officer and is an ad-interim order on the application filed by the Petitioners. This order will be of no avail to the Petitioners to contend that they have not lost possession as noted in the Panchanama and other documents which are available in the original record produced before us. 6 As observed earlier, the Respondents have placed before us the record which indicates that the possession of the disputed land has already been taken over by the authorities and subsequently handed over to the private Respondent. In that sense, the Petitioners have lost the possession of the said land in law. 3 7 The Petitioners, however, dispute the factum of possession. That being a disputed question of fact cannot be answered in the present writ petition. The present writ petition would proceed on the basis of the documentary evidence produced by the Respondents which belies the claim of the Petitioners. 8 In the circumstances, this Petition is dismissed. 9 At this stage, the counsel for the Petitioners prays that the Petitioners be permitted to file a suit to challenge the factum of possession and thereafter to ask for appropriate consequential reliefs. We express no opinion on the question of maintainability of such suit or on the merit of the contentions. (R.M.SAVANT, J.) (A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.)