1 Lpa266-06 dmt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 266 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 6364 OF 2003 Sadashiv Ganpat Dhumal. .... Appellant. vs. Ratnamala Ganpat Galande & Ors. .... Respondents. Mr. A.P. Kulkarni for Appellant. Mr. A.I. Patel, AGP., for Respondent Nos.3 & 4. CORAM : P.B. MAJMUDAR & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 8TH JUNE, 2011. P.C. By way of this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant has challenged the order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.2.2006 in Writ Petition No. 6364 of 2003. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the present appellant. It is the case of the appellant that he is a project affected person and as the project affected person is entitled to get suitable land from the State. Before the learned Single Judge the appellant herein had challenged the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune 2 Lpa266-06 dated 28.5.2003. By the impugned order, the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune directed the Collector to consider the claim of Respondent No. 1 for allotment of the land in question as per the government policy regarding charging of penalty, etc. The said order was challenged before the learned Single Judge on the ground that the Respondent No. 1 has taken advantage of the fact that her husband is serving as a Circle inspector in the Rehabilitation Department of that area. It is the case of the appellant that Respondent No. 1 had got the said plot from one Sitabai Bhiva Pawar (since deceased) who had purchased the said plot from one Pralhad Raghunath Pawar. The said Pralhad Raghunath Pawar was allotted the land under the rehabilitation scheme. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the transaction of sale in favour of Respondent no. 1 is a fraudulent one and she had taken benefit of the fact that her husband was serving as a Circle Inspector and was dealing with the cases regarding project affected people. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by holding that the present appellant has no locus standi to challenge the said order of the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune. Against the order of the learned Single Judge this Letters Patent Appeal is filed by the original petitioner. 2. Mr. Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in observing in the order that the land in question is allotted to Respondent No. 1. He submitted that the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune has merely remanded the matter back to the Collector for inquiry and has to take fresh decision as per the government policy 3 Lpa266-06 for charging penalty. It is submitted by him that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the land in question cannot be allotted to Respondent No. 1 as according to him, the respondent no. 1 has created false documents of title and that her husband is an influential person in the area. 3. We have heard Mr. Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned AGP. appearing in the matter. In our view, this Court in writ petition cannot decide such a highly disputed question of facts and cannot decide whether the husband of Respondent no. 1 is an influential person or whether the documents are genuine or not. Suffice it to say that by the impugned order the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune has merely remanded the matter back for fresh consideration and to find out whether the possession of respondent no. 1 can be regularised by charging penalty as per the government resolutions. It is not in dispute that the Collector has not taken any final decision in this behalf. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant however submits that since he is a project affected person he is interested in the land in question. The said point also cannot be adjudicated in the present proceedings. Suffice it to say that on the basis of the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune, the Collector is now required to take a fresh decision regarding regularisation of the land as per the government policy, resolutions and circulars in this behalf. The Collector may now take a fresh decision in view of the order 4 Lpa266-06 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune and may find out whether the possession of Respondent No. 1 can be regularised. It is needless to say that the Collector has to take the decision in accordance with law and as per the policy and circulars of the Government in this behalf. The said decision may be taken after hearing concerned parties expeditiously and may take decision as per the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune within a period of six months from today. It is clarified that the we have not expressed any opinion as to whether the Respondent No. 1 is entitled to regularisation or not. All these aspects are left for the consideration of the Collector. Till the Collector takes a decision in this behalf, the respondent no. 1 shall maintain status quo in respect of the land in question. 5. Subject to what is stated above, the Letter Patents Appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. (A.A. SAYED, J.) (P.B. MAJMUDAR, J.)