1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.321 OF 2007 IN M.C.A. NO.146 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1780 OF 2006.. (DAULAT VITHOBA JADHAV Vs THE COMMISSIONER, AMRAVATI DN.& OTH....) _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's orders ______________________________________________________________________________________________ Shri A.S.Kilor, Advocate for Appellant. Shri T.R.Kankale, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 to 3. Smt. Smita Deshpande, Advocate for Respondent No.4. CORAM : K.J.ROHEE AND R.C.CHAVAN, JJ. DATED : JANUARY 30, 2008. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. In the year 1964 the land in question was initially allotted to respondent No.4 on temporary lease for two years. He never got the lease renewed. On the other hand he delivered possession of the said plot to the appellant in or 2 about 1984. Thereafter the appellant continued to be in possession of the plot. On 26.08.1997, the appellant applied to the Tahsildar for allotment of the said plot in his favour under the provisions of the Land Disposal Rules, 1971. The said application is yet to be decided. On 01.02.1999 respondent No.4 also applied for restoration of the said land to him. The said application is also undecided. In the meanwhile the appellant instituted a civil suit for declaration that he is the occupant Class-II and has every right of permanent allotment of the said land. He also sought perpetual injunction against the defendants therein from disturbing his possession over the suit land. By judgment dated 11 th October, 2002 the Civil Court dismissed the suit. On 17.12.2002 the Sub-Divisional Officer directed the Tahsildar to evict the appellant from the suit land. The said order was confirmed by the Additional Commissioner by his order dated 19.05.2004. All attempts of the appellant to challenge the said order failed and ultimately the appellant is 3 before us in Letters Patent Appeal against the order of the learned single Judge, passed on 15.02.2007. 3. We have carefully perused the entire record. We are satisfied that the appellant is a sheer encroacher and no protection can be extended to him by this Court. Hence, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. 4. The appellant may press his application for allotment of the said land and the Revenue Authorities may decide the application according to law. JUDGE JUDGE RR.