1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3145 OF 2009 Venkat Krishnaji Suryawanshi (Kolate), Age: 68 years, Occ: Agri., R/o. Sastoor, Tq. Lohara, Dist. Osmanabad. ...PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Relief and Rehabilitation, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai & Ors. ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri. A.V. Patil, Advocate holding for Shri. V.D. Gunale, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.R.P. Phatke, A.G.P.for Respondent Nos.1 to 3. Shri. A.D. Wange, Advocate for Respondent No.4. Shri. A.M. Mukhedkar, Advocate holding for Mr. L.C. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.5. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 7TH JUNE, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 2. The petitioner and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 are earthquake affected persons from Latur District. The petitioner was earlier allotted House No. 672 and thereafter, he was allotted House No.422. The Collector thereafter by an order dated 28-07-1999 reallotted the House No. 422 to the petitioner and House No.672 to respondent No.5 and House No. 530 to respondent No.4. Against this allotment, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 preferred Civil Suit. Some interim orders were passed by the Civil Court. Thereafter, the Collector changed allotment and allotted House NO. 422 in favour of respondent No.4. 3. The petitioner was aggrieved. Therefore, he preferred appeal to the Divisional Commissioner. By a detail reasoned order, the Divisional Commissioner dismissed the appeal on 08-05-2008. The petitioner had filed revision against the order of the Divisional Commissioner to the State, which came to be dismissed. 3 4. Consequent to the notices issued, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed affidavit in reply. 5. Shri. A.V. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner is erroneous and against the record and facts. The petitioner was resident of Ward No. 1 before earthquake and therefore, he prayed allotment of house in his favour. According to the Counsel, reallotment was wrong. 6. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submitted that they are residing in reallotted houses since more than 15 years. Their possession need not be disturbed now. The Divisional Commissioner has considered all aspects of the matter and passed a reasoned order. It does not require interference by this Court in extraordinary writ jurisdiction. 4 7. We find that the Divisional Commissioner had dealt with issue in detail and passed a reasoned order. We do not find any serious or glaring error in the view adopted by the Divisional Commissioner. The petitioner's insistence of staying in Ward No. 1 may be sentimental aspect of the matter but for the said purpose, the possession of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 need not be disturbed. Even on merits also, we do not find that interference by this Court in extraordinary writ jurisdiction is warranted. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] sut/JUNE10/wp3145.09