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. 4214 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 4214 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 4214 OF 2008 Mohanrao Laxmanrao Jadhav. ... Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... Respondents. H.S.Venegavkar for the petitioner. V.A.Sonpal, AGP for the respondents. CORAM: V.C.DAGA and CORAM: V.C.DAGA and CORAM: V.C.DAGA and MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED: 18th March 2009. DATED: 18th March 2009. DATED: 18th March 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.P. for the respondents. Perused petition. 2. The petitioner is contending that his land was acquired in the year 1983 for the public purpose of extension of village boundary. He further submits that the land has not yet been used for the purpose for which it was acquired. He, therefore, prayed that the subject land be restored to the petitioner. 3. In reply to the allegations made in the petition, the State Government has filed reply stating that in view of the Government Resolution dated 12th March, 2004 issued on the basis of the Apex Court order, the petitioner cannot get back his land. If the subject land is not utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired, then in that event, the land is required to be sold in auction. The respondents have, however, stated in the affidavit that the subject land, which was acquired, has been allotted to the beneficiary and the allotment order has been given by the Sub-divisional Officer, Satara to the beneficiaries. The actual possession of the subject land is, however, not given to the beneficiaries. It is, thus, true that the allotment of subject land has been done but no possession has been given. In these circumstance, allottees of the subject land will have to claim possession. 4. It is, no doubt, true that if the possession is not given to the allottee and allottee is not coming forward to claim possession of the allotted land, in that event, the petitioner can certainly contend that the subject land be put to a public auction so as to enable him to bid for the subject property as a citizen of this country. 5. In the above view of the matter, if the grievance of the petitioner is to be looked into, then all the allottees of the subject land would be necessary parties to the petition. Since all the allottees are not party to this petition, petition cannot be entertained. It will have to be dismissed for non-joinder of affected parties. 6. In view of the aforesaid scenario, learned counsel for the petitioner, after taking instruction from the petitioner, who is present in the Court, seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to file fresh petition as and when details of all the allottees would be available. 7. Petition is, thus, dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty grated in favour of the petitioner with no order as to costs. 8. Since the respondents have filed affidavit, the amount of costs awarded vide order dated 3rd March, 2009 stands waived. (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)