IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 4980 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 4980 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 4980 OF 2008 Jagannath Abajirao Salunkhe and others. ... Petitioners. V/s. The State of Maharashtra and others. ... Respondents. S.A.Sawant for the petitioners. Sameer Patil for respondent Nos.1 to 3. P.A.Pol for respondent No.4. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 12th September 2008. DATED: 12th September 2008. DATED: 12th September 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 11th June, 2008 of the District Rehabilitation Officer, Satara whereby the application of the petitioner seeking regulation of the encroachment made by the petitioner came to be rejected. 3. The petitioner was claiming adverse possession in respect of land bearing Gat No.323/18. In respect of very same land he had lost civil suit right upto the stage of second appeal. The person, who was claiming adverse possession against the State Government, actually, had no right to get his application considered by the Government since no equity was in his favour. He has no equity since he has tried to defeat the rights of the true owner. 4. In spite of the above position, the State Government was pleased to consider the application of the petitioner pursuant to the direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court and decided the same for the reasons recorded therein by an order dated 11th June, 2008. 5. Having seen the order and reasons recorded, no infirmity is to be found in the impugned order. The view taken is a reasonable and possible view. No perversity could be demonstrated by the learned counsel for the petitioner. I concur with the reasons given. The right of the applicant- petitioner is only to get his application considered, which has been considered in its proper perspective. 5. In the result petition is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)