vss 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 WRIT PETITION NO.3895 OF 1991 WRIT PETITION NO.3895 OF 1991 WRIT PETITION NO.3895 OF 1991 Madhukar Ramchandra Pawar ... Petitioner V/s. The Additional Commissioner, Pune Division & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.Surel S. Shah for Petitioner Mr.Asif Patel, AGP, for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 Mr.Umesh Mankapure for Respondent No.4 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J MHATRE, J MHATRE, J. DATED: SEPTEMBER 29, 2008 SEPTEMBER 29, 2008 SEPTEMBER 29, 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: ORAL JUDGMENT: . The petition has been filed against the order dated 11.7.1991 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Camp, Kolhapur dismissing Appeal No.Land/Satara/ 73/1991. The order confirms the order of the Additional Collector, Satara dated 18.6.1991 in case No.1 of 1991. By this order, the petitioner’s claim to alluvial land has been dismissed. 2. The land in question is survey No.801 consisting of 4 acres 15 gunthas. Three acres of this land was purchased by one Apte. The petitioner claims to be a tenant of Apte and that he is in possession of Survey No.809/A/2. According to the petitioner, because of his occupation of this land, he was entitled to the alluvial : 2 : land which was adjacent to this land. Admittedly, the tenancy proceedings which were pending before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal were decided in favour of the petitioner. That judgment was challenged in this Court. By an order of 12.10.1979 in Special Civil Application No.1457 of 1977, the Division Bench of this Court held that the petitioner is not a tenant of Survey No.809/A/2 land and that in fact it was Respondent No.4 who was the original owner. 3. Section 32 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code reads as under: (1) When it appears to the Collector that any alluvial land, which vests under any law for the time being in force in the State Government, may with due regard to the interests of the public revenue be disposed of, he shall, subject to the rules made by the State Government in this behalf, offer the same to the occupant (if any) of the bank or shore on which such alluvial land has formed. The price of the land so offered shall not exceed three times the annual assessment thereof. (2) If the occupant does not accept the offer, the Collector may dispose of the land without any restrictions as to price. Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, not withstanding anything containe din clause (24) of section 2, if the bank of shore has been mortgaged with possession, the mortgagor shall be deemed to be the occupant thereof. 4. Thus, had the petitioner been able to substantiate his case that survey No.809/A/2 was in his possession and that he was a tenant on that land, he : 3 : could have been entitled to the adjacent land which was alluvial land. However, in view of the judgment and order of this Court in Special Civil Application No.1457 of 1977 the petitioner is not entitled to that land. The impugned order need not be reversed. Apart from this, Respondent No.4 had obtained a permanent injunction against the petitioner from disturbing his possession over survey No.809/A/2. In these circumstances, the claim made by the petitioner that he is entitled to the alluvial land adjacent to survey No.809/A/2 cannot be accepted. 5. The order passed by the additional Commissioner cannot be faulted and is hereby upheld. The Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No costs.