1 WP 689 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.689 of 2009 Smt.Chandrabhagabai Namdev Aware ..... Petitioner V/s. The Additional Collector and Competent authority and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.R.B.Paranjpe i/by Mr.J.D.Khairnar, for the petitioner. Smt.S.S.Bhende, AGP, for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 21ST JULY, 2010. P.C. 1. Rule. 2. Learned AGP waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the parties, rule is made returnable forthwith and heard. 3. The petitioner claims to be owner of various lands at Village Chehedi (Burruk), Taluka and District Nashik, which include lands bearing Survey No.128/1A, admeasuring 10827.00 sq. mtrs., and Survey No.128/1C, admeasuring 1000 sq. mtrs. On filing of the return by the husband of the petitioner, an order under Section 8(4) of the Act, was passed by the Competent Authority on 08-12-1993. It appears that thereafter, a Notification under Section 10(1) of the Act was published in Government Gazette on 12-05-2005, which was followed by a Notification 2 WP 689 of 2009 under Section 10(3) of the Act, dated 28-11-2005. A notice under Section 10(5) of the Act, was issued on 23-01-2006, calling upon the petitioner to hand over the possession of the excess land. The petitioner and her heirs thereafter, preferred a Revision Application purported to be under Section 34 of the said Act, on 04-08-2006. 4. From the bare perusal of the averments made in the petition, it appears that the possession of the land which was declared as surplus, was not taken by the Competent Authority till 18-02-2006. Whereas, in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the Competent Authority, it is averred that the possession of the said excess land was taken by Shri Shinde, Circle Officer, on 16-02-2006 and the name of the State Government was also mutated in the holders column of the 7/12 extracts of the Survey No.128/1A vide Mutation Entry No.4733. 5. In the instant case, the fact as to whether the possession of the excess land was taken by the Government or not in accordance with law before 29th November, 2007, is in dispute. This Court in its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot decide such a disputed question. In our view, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner would be to file a civil suit seeking appropriate reliefs. The contentions of both the sides are explicitly kept open for being agitated in the Civil suit that would be filed by the petitioner. The writ petition is 3 WP 689 of 2009 accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner draws our attention to a communication dated 19-01-2007 addressed by the Additional Collector and Competent Authority to the Under Secretary, Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra. In the said communication, it is stated that steps to cancel order under Section 8(4) as well as notifications issued under Section 10(1), (2) and (3) and the notice under Section 10(5) of the Act, are solicited. The learned counsel fairly accepts the position that though, the said communication was addressed as above, no further steps seem to have been taken pursuant thereto and that the petitioner is not in possession of any order/letter issued pursuant to the said communication. Be that as it may, in our view, in view of the Repeal of the said Act, assuming that such a communication exists, no steps can now be taken in furtherance of the said communication. 7. As the petitioner intends to file a civil suit seeking appropriate reliefs, to facilitate such a course of action, the parties are directed to maintain status quo in relation to the land in question, for a period of eight weeks from today. ( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )