-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.8601 OF 2006 Shri Ramchandra Mahadu Bhujbal : Petitioner V/s. District Rehabilitation Officer Pune & Ors. : Respondents ... Mr.Jaydeep S. Deo for the petitioner. Mrs.S.S.Bhende, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for resp. nos.1 & 2. Mr.Dilip Bodke for respondent no.3. ... CORAM : S.B.MHASE & A.A.KUMBHAKONI,JJ. DATE : JUNE 05, 2008. P.C. Heard. 2. The order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Pune Division, Pune, bearing No.Rehab/OD-3/Appln/170/2002 dated 10.4.2003 is under challenge in this Petition. 3. The southern side portion of the petitioner’s land bearing gat no.421 to the extent of 50 ares has been acquired for resettlement of project affected persons and after the acquisition, the land has also been distributed to the project affected persons. -: 2 :- 4. The petitioner made the application in issue seeking that instead of the land from the southern side, land from the northern side in the form of east-west strip be acquired as an alternate land. 5. The petitioner has tried to make out a further case that his land is not liable for acquisition as notional partition with his sons is effected. However, the said ground is not available to the petitioner as the partition allegedly effected is only a notional one. In law, it should be actual partition effected prior to the issuance of the notification under section 10 of the Maharashra Resettlement of Project Displaced Persons Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the "said Act") and, therefore, the said ground is not valid and is rightly rejected by the impugned order. 6. The Act contemplates the holding to be taken into consideration and does not contemplate the area for the well, barren land, etc. to be excluded from the holding and, therefore, contentions raised in this regard also has been rightly rejected. The area of the well and house which are allegedly there in the land, even if excluded, the slab is not changed. 7. So far as the proposal for giving alternate land is -: 3 :- concerned, the said proposal has been conditionally accepted by the Addl. Commissioner by the impugned order, subject to the consent of the project affected persons to whom the land has been allotted. Thus, we find that the application in issue of the petitioner has been properly dealt with by the Commissioner and no interference is called for in the impugned order. 8. The Writ Petition is dismissed. (A.A. KUMBHAKONI, J.) (S.B. MHASE, J.)