: 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.5911 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.5911 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.5911 OF 2008 Hirabai Baban Pasalkar ...Petitioner. V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.S.S.Patwardhan , adv. for the Petitioner. Mr.V.S.Masurkar, AGP , adv. for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4. CORAM: Bilal Nazki CORAM: Bilal Nazki CORAM: Bilal Nazki & J.H.Bhatia,JJ J.H.Bhatia,JJ J.H.Bhatia,JJ. DATE : 20th October, 2008. DATE : 20th October, 2008. DATE : 20th October, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Petitioner claims that she is displaced person because of the project, which was executed in the year 1975-76. In lieu of her dispossession and dislocation, she was allotted a piece of land in the year 1986 and ultimately possession was handed over to her in 1997 but on 28th January, 2008, it appears that the Collector of Pune wrote to Tehsildar, Haveli directing him to cancel the allotment and also to make appropriate changes in the revenue records as after handing over possession to the petitioner, her name had been recorded in the revenue records. Tehsildar acted upon the letter of the Collector and revenue entries were also changed. Counter has been filed. In the counter, it is claimed that the petitioner was not entitled for allotment as she was not project : 2 : affected person but it does not deny that land was allotted to her, possession was given to her and her name was also recorded in the revenue record on 2-1-2007. It is also not denied that before passing the order of cancellation and change of mutation, no notice was given to the petitioner. We feel that the impugned order can not be allowed to be sustained on the simple ground that after 22 years of allotment having been made and after 11 years possession has been given to the petitioner, allotment could not have been cancelled without even giving show-cause notice. Therefore, the order impugned is violative of rules of natural justice and can not be allowed to sustain. 2. The order passed by the Collector, Pune and subsequent orders effecting changes in the mutation entries are quashed. It is admitted that possession continues to be with her and, therefore, her possession shall also not be disturbed. Further, if the respondents feel that this is a case of misrepresentation or fraud, they should proceed in accordance with law and pass appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that third party interest in the land shall not be created for a period of three months from today. : 3 : 3. Petition is disposed off. (Bilal Nazki, J.) (Bilal Nazki, J.) (Bilal Nazki, J.) (J.H.Bhatia, J.) (J.H.Bhatia, J.) (J.H.Bhatia, J.)