1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.6829 OF 2007 1.Shri.Biku Maruti Pawar & Anr. ...Petitioners. vs. 1.Social Land Acquisition Officer No.11, Satara & Ors ...Respondents. --- Mr.Amit B.Borkar, for Petitioners. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP for Respondents. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH, J. DATED: 11th JANUARY,2008. P.C.:- 1. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division dated 12.2.2002 rejecting the application filed by the petitioners under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act for deleting their land from 2 acquisition. The Commissioner has rejected the application for two reasons viz. (i) that the possession of the land was taken by the Government on 18.3.2000 even before the application under Section 48 of the Act was made, and (ii) that the land which was compulsorily acquired from the petitioners has already been ordered to be distributed to the project affected persons. 2. So far as the first reason given is concerned, the learned Counsel appearing for petitioners submits that the application was not made under Section 48 of the Act but was made under the order of this Court dated 28.3.2000 passed in Writ petition no.1333 of 2000, and therefore, according to them, their application for deletion of the land from acquisition can be considered despite the provisions of Section 48 of the Act. Perusal of the order dt. 28.3.2000 shows that the Court permitted the petitioners to make representation before the Commissioner and the Commissioner was directed to consider that representation. There is no question of this Court asking the Commissioner to decide the 3 representation, unless there is a power in the Commissioner under the law to delete the land from acquisition. Obviously, therefore, the representation which the petitioners were permitted to make under the order of the Court can be considered only as an application under Section 48 of the Act, because that is the only provision under which the land which is acquired can be deleted from acquisition. The Court cannot by its order create jurisdiction in the authority. The jurisdiction in the statutory authority can be created only by competent legislation and not by the orders of the Court. The submission of the learned Counsel that the Commissioner should not have considered the application of the petitioners as an application under Section 48 of the Act, cannot be accepted. So far as the second reason is concerned, the learned Counsel submits that the land is actually in possession of the petitioners, and therefore, the Commissioner is not justified in saying that the land has been distributed. What the Collector has stated in the order is that the order has been made for distribution of the land to the project affect 4 persons. It means that the rights have been created in favour of the third parties by allotting the land. Obviously, therefore, the application for deletion of the land from acquisition could not have been considered and for the same reasons even the request made by the learned Counsel appearing for petitioners that they should be given alternate land also cannot be considered. The petition and the request are therefore, rejected. ---