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 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 184 OF 2008 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 184 OF 2008 LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 184 OF 2008 IN IN IN WRIT PETITION NO. 3277 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO. 3277 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO. 3277 OF 2005 Pramod Prahlad Koppar. .. Appellant. Vs. The Collector, Thane, & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. Vaibhav Patankar for the Appellant. Ms. M.P. Thakur, AGP for Respondent/State. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI,JJ. SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATE: 12TH MARCH, 2009. DATE: 12TH MARCH, 2009. DATE: 12TH MARCH, 2009. P.C. . Heard. 2. The predecessor in title of the appellant was allotted a piece of land by the Government under the 2 Scheme meant for Freedom Fighters. The allotment of land was for a specific purpose on certain conditions. The condition was that within a period of two years the allottee must cultivate the said land. However, thereafter it was noticed by the Government that the land though allotted for cultivation has not been cultivated. Hence, relying upon the report of the Tehsildar, action for resuming the land to the Government was initiated. Notice came to be issued and explanation was called for. The explanation of the appellant was taken into consideration. After considering the case of the appellant, the authority concluded that the land was not brought under cultivation. 3. It is noticed that sufficient opportunity was given to the appellant to bring material on record to show that indeed the land was being cultivated as contended by him. However, despite sufficient opportunity being given, no material was produced by the appellant to show that indeed the land was being cultivated. 4. A contention has been raised by the appellant that in fact the land was not capable of being cultivated and hence he could not undertake cultivation of the said land. We find that no grievance on this aspect was ever raised by the appellant till the 3 proceedings for resuming the land was initiated by the Government. The 7 X 12 extract also does not show that the land was being cultivated. The spot panchanama which was drawn on the spot also shows that the land was not being cultivated and was lying barren. It is clear that the appellant has not fulfilled the condition. 5. The learned Single Judge, therefore, has rightly dismissed the writ petition. We see no error or illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge. The Letters Patent Appeal is, therefore, dismissed. (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (J.N. Patel, J.) (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.) (Smt. V.K. Tahilramani, J.)