1.wp.10483.09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10483 OF 2009 Vijay Dinkar Patil and 3 others. ..Petitioners. Versus The State of Maharashtra and 5 others. ..Respondents. .... Mr.A.G. Damle, Advocate with Vikas Mali, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Ashutosh A. Kumbhakoni, Sr. Advocate a/w. Mr.S.B. Pawar & Ms. Swati C. Sawant, Advocates i/b. S.K. Legal Asso. for respondent No.6. Mr.S.N. Patil, A.G.P., for respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4. .... CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH, AND A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 7TH JANUARY, 2010. P.C.:- 1. By this Petition, the petitioners are seeking an order setting aside of orders dated 21.4.2009 and 8.12.2009. By order dated 21.4.2009 which is passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Thane a entry taken in the revenue record in favour of one Sakharam Patil has been ordered to be deleted in relation to Survey No. 1/1A (old Survey No.259/1A). By order dated 8th December, 2009, the Collector has allotted the land from that survey 1.wp.10483.09 2 number admeasuring 2300 square meters to respondent No.6 Society. So far as the order dated 21.4.2009 is concerned, admittedly, the petitioner has filed an appeal against that order before the Collector which is pending consideration before the Collector. Therefore, in this Petition validity or otherwise of that order cannot be judged. So far as the order dated 8.12.2009 is concerned, that order has been made by the Collector in compliance with the order passed by the State Government dated 27.8.2009 allotting the land in favour of respondent No.6 Society. In the Petition there is no challenge to the order passed by the State Government dated 27.8.2009. What is further pertinent to note is that the entry in the revenue record which is directed to be deleted was in favour of one Sakharam Patil. Admittedly the petitioners does not claim anything through Sakharam Patil. According to the averments in the Petition, the land was allotted to the Sakharam Posu Patil by the Government on 14.1.1950. According to the averments in the Petition, the mother of the petitioner was cultivating the land admeasuring 12 acres & 17 gunthas from survey No.259/1A from 1948 i.e. even before the land was allotted to Sakharam Patil. It is claimed that "The petitioners state that, the said Sakharam 1.wp.10483.09 3 Posu Patil was cultivating the said land and taking crop of paddy from it.". Further it is claimed that "The petitioners state that, along with Sakharam petitioner's mother Parvatibai Patil was also cultivating land of 6 acres out of Survey No.259/1A and her name was recorded to the 7/12 extract in the cultivation column and also Sakharam's name were entered in the cultivation column in the year 1954 to 1958." 2. Thus, it is clear that according to the case of the petitioners, the mother of the petitioners was cultivating 12 acres and 17 gunthas of land from 1948 then according to the petitioner Sakharam started cultivating the entire land from 1950 after the land was given to him on lease. But, then it is claimed that the petitioner's mother was cultivating 6 acres land along with Sakharam. It is nowhere stated in the Petition, in what right the petitioner's mother was cultivating 6 acres land along with Sakharam. Whether there was any partnership in cultivation or they were joint tenants, nothing is specified. Even the 6 acres of land which is supposed to be cultivated by the mother of the petitioners' along with Sakharam is not specified anywhere. Thus, from the record, one cannot find out which 6 acres land the petitioners' mother was allegedly cultivating along with 1.wp.10483.09 4 Sakharam. The material on record thus clearly shows that the petitioners are making contradictory claims, but, one thing that clearly emerges is that the petitioners are not claiming anything in relation to the land through Sakharam whose name has been directed to be deleted from the revenue record by order dated 21.4.2009. Thus we find that the petitioners have no legal connection with the land. The petitioners are not entitled to claim anything in relation to the land and have no locus to challenge the allotment of the land in favour of respondent No.6 Society. Petition is rejected. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J) (A.R. JOSHI,J)