1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.4061/2010 Mahadeo Domaji Madan and others ...Versus... State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Irrigation and Rehabilitation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Shri S. Khadse, Adv. for petitioners] [Shri A.M. Deshpande, AGP for respdt. Nos.1 to 4] [S/Shri Anand Parchure, J.J. Chandurkar, Advs. for respdt. No.5 - intervenor] CORAM:- V.C. DAGA AND A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED :- 20.12.2010 Perused petition. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The challenge set up in the petition is to the cancellation of the allotment of plots. The contention of the petitioners is that allotment of the plots has been cancelled arbitrarily. On being noticed respondent Nos.2 to 4 appeared and filed affidavit. Relevant part thereof reads as under : “6. It is submitted that the answering respondents had received complaints regarding the allotment of plots. It is submitted that the nature of the complaints which were received by the authorities were of following nature. (a) one plot was allotted to more one person. (b) that the basic civic amenities were not provided before the allotment of the plots. (c) the demarcation of the entire plot was not done. (d) that the persons who were affected because of the land acquisition and whose house property was acquired were not allotted the plots. 2 (e) in the allotment of plot was allotted to one Gulab Meshram who was not resident of Mouza Guikhed.” Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is not in a position to dispute the reasons disclosed. However, he submits that after allotment of the plots the petitioners have already proceeded to structure plinth area. The factual situation emerging on record is that one plot appears to have been allotted to more than one person. Plots are also allotted to the persons who are not resident of Mouza : Guikhed. The above circumstances are the cause of cancellation of allotment of plots. It is not that, if the fresh process of allotment of plots is initiated, the petitioners would not get plots. Only the location of the plots may change. The respondents have made a statement on oath that so far as the plot holders, who have proceeded to effect construction are concerned, they would be duly compensated in terms of money. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is without any substance. The same is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. However, if the petitioners desire to receive the compensation without prejudice to their rights, they would be free to lift the amount indicated in the counter affidavit. If the petitioners are not satisfied with the amount indicated, the petitioners shall be free to take other remedy for redressal of their grievances. All contentions in that behalf are kept open. Needless to mention that due to disposal of this petition, interim orders, if any, shall stand automatically vacated. In the result, writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE SSW