1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 46 OF 2007 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7609 OF 2007 Shripati J. Kadam & Ors. .. Petitioners. vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. Mr. S.P. Thorat for the Petitioners. Mr. N.D. Deshpande, AGP., for Respondent Nos.1 & 2. Mr. Y.S. Jahagirdar i/by Mr. G.S. Godbole for R. No. 4 in W.P. No.7609/07. Mr. S.N. Chandrachood for R. No. 5 in W.P.No.7609/07. CORAM: J.N. PATEL, & Smt. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE : 5TH MAY, 2009. P.C. 2 . The learned AGP., after seeking instructions from the Collector, Pune makes a statement that the subsequent group consisting of 71 persons also fall in the category of project affected persons who are being rehabilitated on the subject land. This statement is accepted. 2. The petitioner has approached this court impugning the notices issued by the S.D.O. Dated 20.12.2006 Exhibit “F” to the petition being contrary to the order passed by this court which are annexed to the petition at Exhibits “C” and “D”. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that by this notice the respondent proposes to evict them from the plot of land allotted to them as project affected persons in order to accommodate others. 3. We find that the notice issued to the petitioners which is challenged before the Court is not for the purpose of dispossessing them from the plot of land which has been allotted to them as project affected persons but to examine as to whether they have encroached on the land beyond their entitlement and, therefore, we do not find any reason why the petitioner should not participate in the proceedings pursuant to the notice issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Pune Sub-Division as it clearly specifies that they are called upon to remove the encroachments so as to carve out plots as per the order passed by the High court in the matter being 3 survey no. 25/29, 160 and 161 part which is acquired for the purpose of resettlement of project affected persons from village Shivane, Tal. Haveli, District Pune. Therefore, it cannot be said that the notice is bad in law. In so far as the notices issued in the name of deceased persons are concerned, it will be proper on the part of the legal heirs of the deceased to respond to the notice and bring it to the notice of the authorities that they are the legal heirs. On such application being made, the respondent S.D.O., would hear the legal heirs of the deceased persons by giving them a fair opportunity in the matter and then decide the case in accordance with law. Needless to say that all the petitioners will cooperate with the revenue authorities in respect of their entitlement to allotment of plot of land. 4. We make it clear that the revenue authorities would not allot the plot of land acquired for the purpose of rehabilitating projected affected persons to any other persons who do not fall in the said category. 5. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. 6. Mr. Thorat submits that he is unable to understand as to why this Court is not reading the affidavit in reply in another writ petition which has been already disposed of. This is beyond the scope of the petition and 4 that is why this Court does not think it proper to go through matters which are not relevant for the decision of the petition. If Mr. Thorat is not satisfied with our order he has a remedy elsewhere. But if he pursues the matter in this fashion this Court would be constrained to issue notice to him. 7. Writ Petition No. 7609 of 2007 be listed after Summer Vacation for disposal at the stage of admission. S.O. To 22.6.2009. Sd/- (J.N. Patel, J.) Sd/- (Smt. Mridula Bhatkar, J.)