1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1901 OF 2009 1) Govind s/o Tukaram Kshirsagar, 2) Alka Wd/o Balaji Kshirsagar, 3) Saheb s/o Tukaram Kshirsagar, 4) Ramesh s/o Tukaram Kshirsagar, 5) Govind s/o Babarao Kshirsagar, All R/o- Taroda (Kd.), Tq. & Dist-Nanded. ...PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, 2) District Collector, Nanded, Dist-Nanded, 3) Executive Engineer, Purna Irrigation Division, Vasmat, Dist-Parbhani. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr.N.P. Patil (Jamalpurkar) Advocate for Petitioners. Mrs.A.V. Gondhalekar A.G.P. for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. ... 2 CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.U. CHANDWAL, JJ. DATE : 7TH NOVEMBER, 2009. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the possession of the land of the Petitioners was taken in the year 1969 for the purpose of canal without initiating land acquisition proceedings. According to learned counsel for the Petitioners the public purpose for which the land was acquired is also ceased now, as part of the land of the Petitioners has been transferred from the acquiring body to the Collector as it is not required for the purpose for which it was acquired. The record is not available with the Government Office. 3. Affidavit in reply is filed by Respondent No.3, Executive Engineer, Purna Irrigation Division, Basmatnagar. The deponent has clearly made a statement 3 that in respect of the land of the Petitioners admeasuring 64 R. from Survey No.47, award was passed bearing No. LAQ/N/87/66 in the year 1966 and the amount of the compensation was already paid to the owner of the land including father of the present Petitioners. The deponent further submits that in view of the subsequent developments and the growth of Nanded city, some of the acquired area was converted into non agricultural use and the acquiring authority handed over possession of the part of the land to the Collector for its use for other public purposes. 4. In the light of the material placed before this Court and the reply filed by the State, we are convinced that no relief could be granted to the Petitioners. Acquisition proceedings are already completed. The Petitioners' father received the amount of compensation. The Petitioners had approached this Court after more than quarter century. If the concerned land is put to use for different public purpose, in the facts of the present case, the Petitioners are not entitled to challenge the same at this stage. We do not find any illegality or mala fides on the part of the Respondents. 4 No interference is called for in exercise of extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is therefore dismissed. [K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL J.] asb/NOV09/wp1901.09