1 20.wp-6547-11.sxw jdk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6547 OF 2011 Shri. Rama Raghunath Lad ..Petitioner versus Shri. Pandurang Nhanu Waskar & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. Vaibhav Gaikwad i/b Amit Borkar for Petitioner. Mr. P.D.Dalvi for Respondent Nos. 1 to 7 Mr. S.N.Patil AGP for Respondent Nos. 8 and 9 CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATED : OCTOBER 11, 2011. P.C. : 1 Heard the counsel for the petitioner and the learned respective counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 to 9. 2 The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that the petitioner's father was a project affected person and after his death, vide order dated 23.5.1990 land admeasuring 2 Hector 83 Ares was allotted to the petitioner. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the original owner of the land challenged the acquisition proceedings. The issue was taken up to the Apex Court and the Apex Court permitted the original owner to exercise his option for retention of land 2 20.wp-6547-11.sxw in question. The learned AGP has submitted that the original owner opted for retaining the portion of the land out of which the land admeasuring 2 Hector 83 Ares was allotted to the petitioner vide order dated 23.5.1990. The learned AGP further contended that the petitioner made a request for grant of allotment of alternate land which was accepted by the authorities and the land admeasuring 2 Hector 30 Ares, out of Gat no.145 of village Palyachahuda was allotted to the petitioner. This allotment was made on 5.3.1992. The petitioner was also put in possession thereof on 27.3.1992. The AGP further pointed out that 20 Ares. land out of Gat no. 62 of the same village also came to be allotted to the petitioner and mutation entries in this regard were also effected in the revenue record. It is further submitted by the learned AGP for the State that land admeasuring 40 Ares. out of Gat no. 461/D/K came to be allotted to the brother of the petitioner of village Terwad on 28.10.2005. 3 It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner sold land admeasuring 0.46.2 Ares. out of 2 Hector 30.7 Ares. out of land Gat no.145 which was allotted to the petitioner. Copy of the registered sale deed is annexed with the reply of the respondent nos. 1 to 7. The AGP for the 3 20.wp-6547-11.sxw State as well as counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 7 have submitted that all these facts are suppressed by the petitioner and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts apart from the merits of the matter. 4 We have considered the contentions canvassed by the counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the respondents. The above referred facts clearly demonstrate that since the possession of the original land allotted to the petitioner admeasuring 2 Hector 83 Ares. could not be given, on the basis of the request made by the petitioner, the respondents have allotted 2 Hector 30 Ares. land out of Gat No.145, 20 Are. land out of Gat No. 62 and 40 Ares. land out of Gat No. 461/D/K to the brother of the petitioner. 5 The mutation entries in this regard are also effected and the petitioner was put in possession thereof. It appears that petitioner also sold some land. 6 In view of these undisputed facts, the petition is wholly misconceived, devoid of substance and therefore, dismissed. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.] [ D.D.SINHA,J.]