1 CA 1513/2011 abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1513 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 5644 OF 1999 Uttam Bhimrao Adsul & Ors. .. Petitioners V/s State of Maharashtra & ors. .. Respondents Mr. Dilip Bodake for the petitioners. Mr. S.D. Rairikar, A.G.P. for the respondents. CORAM: D.G. KARNIK & S.J. KATHAWALA, JJ. DATED : 8TH DECEMBER 2011 P.C: 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioners had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 5644 of 1999 challenging the acquisition of their land bearing gat no. 386 admeasuring 1 hactare and 62 ares situate at village Bidal, Taluka Man, District Satara. By an order dated 9th January 2006, the writ petition was allowed and the acquisition proceedings were quashed. 2 CA 1513/2011 Thereafter the petitioners have approached this Court by filing a civil application to amend the judgment and substitute the name of the village from village Bidal to village Dahiwadi. The effect of the amendment would be that the acquisition proceedings of the land bearing gat no. 386 situate at Dahiwadi would be quashed. 3. Mr. Shankar Baburao Gonjari, Resettlement Tahsildar, Satara, has filed an affidavit dated 16th November 2011 in which he has stated that the land bearing gat no. 386 at Dahiwadi had already been acquired and possession thereof has been taken from the petitioners. Not only that but the land has been allotted to Popat Ramchandra Gade, a project affected person. In the affidavit, he has stated that the allottee is in possession of the land. 4. In view of the fact that the allottee is not a party to the petition and the civil application, no relief can be granted to the petitioners as it is likely to affect the allotment made to a third party. Consequently, the civil application for permission to substitute the name of the village in the judgment and order dated 9th January 2006, the effect of which is to alter the land, cannot be granted. 3 CA 1513/2011 5. For these reasons, the civil application is dismissed. We, however, clarify that this shall not prevent the petitioners from pursuing the remedy, if any, available to them in law. (D.G.KARNIK, J.) (S.J. KATHAWALA, J.)