1 Amk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 182 OF 2003 Hariba Chandru Patil .. Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. N. J. Patil for the Petitioner. Mr. R. M. Patne AGP for Respondent Nos.1 to 4. Mr. S. S. Patwardhan for Respondent Nos.5 to 7. CORAM : MRS. R. S. DALVI, J. DATE : 8th March, 2010. P.C. 1. The petitioner as well as respondent Nos.5 to 7 claim to be in possession of the suit properties. The petitioner claims as a project affected person who has been sought to be resettled in the benefited zone and respondent Nos.5 to 7 claim to be in possession as transferees upon sale by the original owner of the disputed land, one Chintamani Joshi. There have been proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and the award has been passed. Possession is stated to have been taken by the Government. The date 2 of the possession is not stated. The affidavit of the Government does not show the date. Subsequent affidavit of the Tahasildar shows actual cultivation by respondent Nos.5 to 7 even after the filing of the petition. That affidavit has been filed pursuant to a specific order in that behalf. Respondent Nos.5 to 7 have filed civil suit challenging the acquisition. The petitioner sought to intervene therein. The status­quo order which is passed in the suit has been continued even after the petitioner’s intervention. 2. Later on respondent Nos.5 to 7 made an application under Section 48 of the Land Acquisition Act for deleting the land sought to be acquired from acquisition. 3. Respondents’ claim that the original owner held land lesser than 8 acres consequent upon an earlier agreement of sale prior to the notified date for the project affected persons. Commissioner, Pune has considered the agreement executed by the owners prior to the notified date being 02.11.1978. The petitioner contends that, agreement has not been produced and he was not heard. If the agreement is not considered and the original owner held land in excess of 8 acres, the petitioner would have been 3 allotted that land. 4. The main contention against the impugned order is that the petitioner was not heard. The petitioner is required to be heard by the Commissioner, Pune. Pending this petition, the ad interim order has been granted in favour of the petitioner staying the impugned order. The impugned order shall remain stayed for four weeks from today. The ad interim order shall continue to four weeks from today. The petitioner shall make a representation to the Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune to be heard in Appeal No. 511 of 2001 within two weeks from today. The Commissioner shall hear the petitioner as well as respondent Nos.5 to 7 and pass an order on the application. 5. The Writ Petition is allowed and Rule is granted accordingly. (R. S. DALVI, J.)