IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 233 OF 2008 Smt.Malati Haibat Pawar & Ors. ...... ......Petitioners V/s State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...... ...Respondents. Mr.G.S.Godbole i/by S.S.Kanetkar, Adv. For the petitioners. Mr.M.D.Naik, AGP For the respondents 1 to 4. CORAM: BILAL NAZKI AND A.P.DESHPANDE, JJ. 8/4/08 PC: The present petitioners take exception to an order of eviction passed by the Competent Authority under the Bombay Land Requisition Act, 1948 which order is confirmed by the Appellate Authority by dismissing the appeal preferred by the present petitioners. 2. The premises in question comprise of one room bearing No.10 on the ground floor in Sita Niwas, 120 Dr.Ambedkar Road (formerly known as Supari Baug Road), Parel, Mumbai. The said room was requisitioned by the State Government by an order dated 14.3.51 in exercise of powers under section 6 of the Bombay Land Requisition Act, and was then allotted to one Ramchandra Ganu Bhilare subject to certain terms and conditions vide order dated 3.5.51. The room was allotted to Ramchandra Bhilare he being 1 State Government employee working as Peon in the Secretariat. Accommodation Inspector of respondents during the course of occupational checking found that the room was being unauthorizedly occupied by the present petitioners and his family members. The Accommodation Inspector intimated the Competent Authority about the unauthorized occupation of the petitioners and hence a show cause notice was served on the allottee Ramchandra Bhialre on 7.8.1979 calling upon him to appear before the Authority to show cause as to why the allotment order issued in his favour should not be canceled and the possession of the premises be not taken by evicting him. A copy of the show cause notice was also served upon the present petitioners. The allottee Ramchandra Bhilare immediately contacted the Area Inspector and stated that his relatives are occupying the requisitioned premises. The local inquiry conducted by the Area Inspector revealed that the petitioners' family was occupying the premises since long and the allottee was residing at Worli. The allottee in reply to show cause notice stated that the allottee' s brother-in-law viz. Shri Pawar (whose LRs are the present petitioners) is in occupation of the premises. The allottee assured the authorities that Shri Pawar would vacate the premises shortly. In these facts the action of eviction was challenged before various Forums though an order of eviction could only be challenged by filing an appeal as is stipulated by section 8D of the act. Despite bar of jurisdiction engrafted in section 8F the petitioners did file a suit in Civil Court which ultimately came to be dismissed and first appeal filed in this 2 Court also met with the same fate. In an earlier round of litigation the appellate authority had remanded the case to the Competent Authority for making further inquiry as to whether the premises in question are the premises which were requisitioned by the State Government and allotted to Ramchandra Bhilare. An order passed by the Competent Authority after remand holds that the premises in occupation of the present petitioners viz. the room in question is the same requisitioned room/premises which was allotted in favour of Ramchandra Bhilare and thus passed an order of eviction. The appeal preferred before the State Government against the said order had been dismissed and hence present writ petition has been filed. The proceedings for eviction of unauthorized occupants initiated in the year 1979 are dragged on by the petitioners by moving different Forums in the face of an express exclusion of jurisdiction of the Courts. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has tried to contend that there is discrepancy in the description of the property which was requisitioned by the Government and the room/premises in occupation of the present petitioners. The submission is that dimensions of the room defer. The Appellate Authority had remanded the matter to the Competent Authority to make an in- depth inquiry in this regard and in that inquiry it has been found that the premises in question is the same. The said finding of fact has not been interfered with by the Appellate Authority. We do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned orders in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Having regard to the statement made by the 3 original allottee in reply to show cause notice that Shri Pawar is relative is occupying the premises goes to corroborate the finding reached by the Competent Authority that the premises in occupation of the present petitioners is the very same requisitioned premises. We do not see any error committed by the authorities below in reaching the conclusion that the petitioners are in unauthorized occupation of the requisitioned premises which were allotted to Ramchandra Bhilare. In the result there being no merit in the petition same is summarily dismissed. 8.4.08 (BILAL NAZKI, J.) (A.P.DESHPANDE, J.) 4