IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6795 OF 1998 Ganesh Shravan Patil and others ..Petitioners versus CIDCO Ltd. & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. R.P. Lote for Petitioners. Mr.G.S. Hegde i/b M/s G.S. Hegde &Associates for respondent No.1. Mr. A.I.I. Patel, AGP AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5 CORAM : D. D. SINHA & A. A. SAYED , JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 15, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have constructed house on the land being survey No.4, hissa No.2 admeasuring 12.3 gunthas situated at Sanpada, New Bombay after obtaining permission from Gram Panchayat. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in the year 1997 they came to know that the land in question was wrongly mutated in the name of CIDCO and therefore, they verified the 7/12 extracts and found that in the said document the name of CIDCO was mutated. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further contended that the respondents without following due procedure of law (such as without acquiring the land of the petitioners') effected the mutation entry, which in fact is impermissible in law and therefore, the action of the respondents is bad in law. 2 The learned Counsel for the respondents has brought to our notice that the facts stated by the petitioners are totally vague and completely confusing. It is submitted that in para 10 at page 9 of the petition the petitioners have stated that initially the possession of the land was taken temporarily by the Executive Engineer Road Development Project Division, Mumbai in the year 1962-63. However, the original petitioner was not aware as to how the said land was transferred in the name of respondent No.1 CODCO Ltd. It is further stated that the land bearing Survey No. 4/2 was taken for public purposes i.e for road development without any authority. It was transferred in the name of respondent No.1- Corporation without following due process of law. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the petitioners have also given reference in the petition to some scheme floated by the respondents, however, neither the said document is annexed with the petition nor any details thereof are mentioned in the petition. It is therefore, was difficult for the respondents to give proper explanation in absence of specific pleadings in this regard. 3 We have considered the averments made in the petition. The pleadings do not demonstrate what exactly is the grievance of the petitioners. The averments made in the petition are vague and for want of adequate material it is difficult for us to appreciate the Challenge raised to procedure evolved by the respondents under the scheme as well as procedure pertaining to land acquisition undertaken by the respondents. It is not disputed that the original document pertaining to scheme was not placed on record by the petitioners and in absence thereof, it is difficult for us to appreciate the grievance of the petitioners. In the circumstances, in our view, no case is made out by the petitioners for showing indulgence. Writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (D. D. SINHA, J.) ( A. A. SAYED, J.)