IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.217 OF 2008 Shri Balkrishna Yashwant Shinde )..Appellant Versus Commissioner, Pune & Ors. )..Respondents ---- Mr.Uday Warunjikar for the appellant. ---- Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Coram : R.S.Mohite,J Date : 5.6.2008. PC 1. This is an appeal filed by the original plaintiff whose land was acquired. In respect of the acquisition, after following due procedure under the Land Acquisition Act, an award was passed in the year 1977 and possession of the land was also taken. On perusing the averments in the plaint, it appears that on 24.4.1979 land was distributed in the present suit filed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s case is that sometimes in the year 1983, Collector passed an order releasing the land from acquisition. He then filed writ petition in this Court being Writ Petition No.6387 of 1987 challenging the acquisition as well as seeking the implementation of the Collector’s orders passed in the year 1983. This Writ petition was dismissed. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed the suit. On : 2 : perusing of the prayers, it appears that what he challenged was the order dated 24.4.1979 distributing the land to defendant nos.2 to 9. He also challenged withdrawal of the order of the Collector. There is no challenge to section 4 or 6 notifications or to the award in the suit. It is now well settled that the challenge to the land acquisition proceedings can only be made in writ jurisdiction and not by way of suit. In so far as order dated 24.4.1979 is concerned, the suit has been dismissed on the ground that it is barred by section 22 of the Re-settlement Act 1976. It is sought to be contended that the order in question was passed prior to the promulgation of the said Act. It is contended that the finding in relation to section 22 is perverse because at the relevant time when the impugned order was passed, the Maharashtra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act 1976 was in force. This contention has no substance. On perusal of the earlier Act also, it is clear that there is similar para-materia bar of jurisdiction. In the circumstances, there is no substantial question of law involved in the appeal. Appeal stands dismissed. (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J) (R.S.Mohite,J)