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 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2873 of 2002. WRIT PETITION NO.2873 of 2002. WRIT PETITION NO.2873 of 2002. Shyamlal Hariram ..Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Others ..Respondents Miss.Mili Thakkar i/b. Vipul Shukla for the petitioners Mr.V.A.Sonpal for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM : BILAL NAZKI & CORAM : BILAL NAZKI & CORAM : BILAL NAZKI & R.Y.GANOO, JJ. R.Y.GANOO, JJ. R.Y.GANOO, JJ. DATED : 17th April, 2009. DATED : 17th April, 2009. DATED : 17th April, 2009. P.C. 1. Counter has not been filed. Nobody appears for the respondents, other than the respondent No.1 State. It appears that the petitioner was allotted a piece of land at Revdanda under Survey No.121A/2 and 122A/1A/1A/B, 6/59 and 8/60 in Taluka Alibag, District Raigad. The respondent No.4 was the displaced person and also claiming that the land should be allotted in his favour. He was not allotted the land, for which he came to the High Court. 2. The High Court, while disposing off the petition in Writ Petition 6159 of 2000 did not give -2- any relief to respondent No.4 but mentioned "However we hereby direct the respondent Nos.2 to 4 to consider the claim of the petitioner and institute of enquiry in respect of his allegations in this regard and if respondent No.5 is found in possession of excess land then he is legally allowed, should necessary action in this regard." The present petitioner was respondent No.5 in that petition. Thereafter it appears that the Commissioner of Settlement conducted enquiry and passed the impugned Order. The effect of the impugned Order is that the allotment of the petitioner stands cancelled and the lands stand allotted to respondent No.4. This Order has been passed without even notice to the present petitioner. No respondent has filed counter. Record is also not been produced. It is contended by the petitioner that he was at no stage informed about the proceeding pending before the Commissioner. The Order also does not disclose that the petitioner was ever summoned by the Commissioner. Therefore, the Order has been passed violating Rules of Natural Justice. Therefore, without going further into the matter, we feel that the Order impugned deserves to be quashed. Therefore, we allow the petition, quash the Order -3- of the Commissioner passed on 19.5.2001. However, the Commissioner is at liberty to start inquiry afresh and pass appropriate Order after hearing all concerned parties, including the petitioner. 3. If commissioner does not initiate inquiry within a period of three months, the land taken from the possession of the petitioner shall be restored to him. 4. The land alloted to the petitioner by the Original Order shall be given possession of to the petitioner. (Bilal Nazki, J.) (Bilal Nazki, J.) (Bilal Nazki, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.) (R.Y.Ganoo, J.)