IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WP/6991/2010 BALKISHAN SITARAMJI BALDAVA V/S THE STATE OF MAH AND ORS ... Shri V.D.Salunke, Advocate for petitioners, Shri S.K.Tambe, AGP for respondents 1 to 3, Shri G.N.Kulkarni (Mardikar) Advocate for respondent 4 ... CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI,J. Dated : April 15, 2011 PER COURT :- 1. Shri Salunke, learned Advocate for petitioners states that the application filed by the petitioners ought to have been treated as an application for allotment of unoccupied land. He is placing reliance on Section 34 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code and the Rules framed thereunder to demonstrate how the said application is required to be considered. He states that any order passed by the Collector on such application is appealable under section 247 of the Land Revenue Code before the Divisional Commissioner only. 2. Learned AGP Shri Tambe for respondents 1 to 3 and Shri Kulkarni, learned Advocate for respondent No.4 points out that the application as moved was not for allotment of unoccupied land. 3. I do not find it necessary to go into this controversy. The petitioner can be given liberty to move a fresh application in accordance 2 WP/6991/2010 with law for allotment of unoccupied land. If such an application is moved by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from today, respondent No.3 Collector shall decide the same within period of eight weeks thereafter, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondent No.4. Impugned order shall not come in the way of the petitioner while said application will be considered. 4. In this view of the matter, Writ Petition stands disposed of. No order as to costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) ... akl