pvr 1 wp498-11 IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.498 OF 2011 Gabaji Maruti Jadhav. ...Petitioner vs. 1.State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents --- Mr.P.H.Potnis,for Petitioner. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for Respondents. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & K.K.TATED, JJ. DATED: 31st January, 2011 P.C.: 1. This petition is a classic example of misuse of extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court. The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to allot him land because his land has been acquired, as also for a direction to the Land Acquisition Officer to deduct 65% of the amount of compensation payable to him from the Award. Under the Maharashtra Project pvr 2 wp498-11 Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, a person is entitled to the allotment of land in the benefited zone of any irrigation project, if his land is acquired and possession is taken for any irrigation project. In the petition, there is no statement made that the petitioner has lost possession of his land or that the Land Acquisition Officer has taken possession of his land without allotting land from the benefit zone. The provisions of Maharashtra Project Affected persons rehabilitation Act apply only after the possession of the land is taken from the project affected persons. Perusal of the Award shows that advance possession of the land has not been taken. Therefore, the only position that is to be seen here is that whether the possession of the land is taken after tendering compensation to the petitioner. In the petition, there is no statement made that though the award has been made, compensation has been tendered to the petitioner and possession of the land has been taken. Therefore, in the absence of such pvr 3 wp498-11 statement an inference can be drawn that the possession of the land has not been taken from the petitioner. The learned Counsel appearing for petitioner stated that the land of the petitioner is submerged. But even a statement to that effect that without taking possession of the land, the land of the petitioner has been made water- logged, has also not been made in the petition. In our opinion, the petition has been filed in most casual manner without making proper averments. Filing of such petition is misuse of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. The petition is, therefore, rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (K.K.TATED,J.)