-: 1 :- SPB 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 CIVIL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6323 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 6323 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO. 6323 OF 2008 Shri Ramchandra Dondiba Pasalkar .. Petitioner. Vs. 1. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents. --- --- --- Mr. Ajit Kanjale i/by V.S.Kapse for the Petitioner. Mr. S.D.Rayrikar, AGP for the Respondents. --- CORAM : V. C. DAGA, J. CORAM : V. C. DAGA, J. CORAM : V. C. DAGA, J. DATED : 18th SEPTEMBER,2008. DATED : 18th SEPTEMBER,2008. DATED : 18th SEPTEMBER,2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 2. This petition filed under Article 227 is directed against the order dated 12.05.2008 passed by the Collector, Pune, rejecting the allotment of land in favour of the petitioner. 3. The factual matrix reveale that father of the -: 2 :- petitioner Mr.Dondiba (since deceased) was the owner of the land admeasuring about 18 H and 51 R situate at Mauje Bhose Gharjewadi, Tal. Velhe, Dist. Pune. The land admeasuring 1 H & 80 R was acquired for the purpose of Vir Baji Pasalkar Project from the holding of Dhondiba, for which he was paid the amount of compensation under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. 4. The father of the petitioner-Dhondiba died in the year 1978,leaving behind petitioner and other two sons. After the death of Dhondiba, the respondents took a policy decision to allot the alternate lands to the project affected persons of Veer Baji Pasalkar project. The respondents treated the unit of Dhondiba as one unit and allotted alternate land of admeasuring about 7 acres as per Scheme. 5. The contention of the petitioner is claiming that his father -Dhondiba is survived by three sons, therefore each son needs to be treated as a separate unit, each unit entitled to have allotment of seven (7) acres of land. Accordingly, petitioner applied for allotment of seven acres of land. The said request was turned down by the Collector in the year 1987 itself. 6. The petitioner has filed civil suit being regular -: 3 :- civil suit No. 2248/ 1987, seeking declaration that the present petitioner (plaintiff) is entitled to get 7 acres of land since he himself formed an unit. The similar relief was claimed by him in favour of his brothers, who were defendant nos.4 and 5 in the suit. Similarly, allotments of land in favour of other allottees were also challenged and declaratory decree in that behalf was prayed. 7. The aforesaid suit came to be decreed ex-parte by the judgement and order dated 01st February, 1993, wherein only relief granted in favour of the petitioner was that the act of the respondent nos. 1 to 3 making allotment of land in favour of other allottees the inhabitants of village Kadave is bad and illegal. Sofar as the claim of allotment of seven acres of land in favour of the petitioner (plaintiff) and his two brothers separately is concerned, no relief was granted. Petitioner did not challenge adverse part of the judgment and decree. With the result this decree has become final and conclusive. 8. The petitioner has been agitating his right and insisting for allotment of 7 acres of land. Consequently, he chose to make representation to the Collector. He also filed writ petition No. 8703 of -: 4 :- 2006, alleging therein that his representation was not being considered by the State Government. The Division Bench vide its order dated 11.02.2008 directed the State Govt./ the Collector to consider the representation made by the petitioner . The said representation was considered by the Collector Pune and after examining the rights of the petitioner, the Collector came to the conclusion that the father of the petitioner (since deceased) had to be treated as one unit and accordingly 7 acres of land was rightly allotted. After the death of the original land holder each of his legal heirs cannot be treated as a separate unit. Not being satisfied with this order, the petitioner is before this court in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned AGP and having examined the facts and circumstances of the case, in the light of the documents produced, I find that the petition is without any substance for more than one reason. Firstly, the refusal to grant part of the relief, which the present petitioner had claimed in the suit before the Civil Court disentitles the petitioner to maintain this petition. He did not challenge that judgment and decree which has become final and conclusive. The State Government and -: 5 :- Collector was also party to the said suit as such it will operate as resjudicata between the parties. Secondly, the reason given by the collector for refusing to grant representation made by the petitioner cannot be faulted. The said order is reasoned order. The view taken is a reasonable and proper view. Thus, no case is made out to entertain this petition. 10. The petition is dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. (V. C. DAGA, J.) .....