1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 4799/2006 (Prakash Manikrao Dhawale & another Versus The Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division & others) Appeal District : Application No. of 200 Writ petition Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. Miss Rane, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deopujari, A.G.P. for the respondent. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATED : NOVEMBER 19, 2007. Heard Ms. Rane, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Deopujari, the learned A.G.P. for the respondents. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 18.02.2006 passed by the Additional Commissioner in Appeal No.4/ULC/ LNA-22/2004-05 dismissing the appeal as not maintainable for want of jurisdiction. In the instant case, considering the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel, following facts are not disputed. That on 25.10.1988, the competent authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act has passed the order and declared the land which is in excess of Urban Land Ceiling Act as Surplus in respect of the other family members of the petitioner 2 i.e. father, etc. Being aggrieved by the said order, Bala Sadashiv Dhawale, Marotrao Sadashiv Dhawale, Manik Sadashiv Dhawale and Baburao Sadashiv Dhawale challenged the validity of the said order before the Additional Collector by filing first appeal which was dismissed by the Additional Collector vide order dated 20.06.1991. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioners were not party to the proceedings either before the competent authority or the appellate proceedings before the Additional Collector, and therefore, the petitioners made representation to the Additional Collector dated 26.09.2000 in this regard. Since the representation was not decided by the Additional Collector, the petitioner on the earlier occasion filed Writ Petition No.1186/2004, wherein the order dated 25.10.1988 passed by the competent authority as well as the order dated 20.06.1991 passed by the lower appellate authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act were impugned. It is not in dispute that this Court on 23.12.2004 disposed of the said writ petition by passing following order: “On the motion made by the learned counsel for petitioner, he is allowed to withdraw the petition with liberty to pursue any other remedy that may be 3 available in law. All rival contentions are kept open. Petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.” It is, in this background, the petitioner filed appeal before the Additional Commissioner against the order dated 25.10.1988 passed by the competent authority. The Additional Commissioner, in the backdrop of these facts, has observed in the impugned order that the appeal against the order dated 25.10.1988 was decided by the Additional Collector vide order dated 20.06.1991 and the said order attained finality, and therefore, question of reopening the validity of the order dated 25.10.1988, when the final appellate order dated 20.06.1991 was in existence, does not arise. Similarly, the Additional Commissioner, in the impugned order rightly observed that there is no provision for filing second appeal and in absence thereof, the Additional Commissioner was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner for the reasons stated in the order. Consequently, the petition suffers from lack of merit and is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE APTE