1 WP 685 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.685 of 2009 Vilas Somkant Chitnis ..... Petitioner V/s. The Deputy Collector and Competent authority and Ors. ..... Respondents Mr.S.G.Karandikar, for the petitioner. Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP, for respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM :P.B.MAJMUDAR & R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 29th 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. One Mr.Baburao Ramlal Karvi was the owner of land bearing Survey Nos.26 Hissa No.2 having City Survey Nos.255/5, 256/5, 258, 259 and 261, Plot C, D of Village Govandi, Deonar, Mumbai. By an agreement dated 07-05-1970 executed by and between the said Shri Karvi and the petitioner and M/s.Arvoco Industries, the said property was given on lease for a period of 99 years to the petitioner and M/s.Arvoco Industries. It was thereafter decided between the parties to divide the said plot and agreed to let out area admeasuring 883 sq. mtrs and the 2 WP 685 of 2009 front plot of 1017 sq. mtrs., to M/s.Chitsons, of which the petitioner claims to be the proprietor. Mr.Lalchand Baburao Karvi, legal heir of Mr.Baburao Karvi, on the Urban Land (C & R) Act, coming into force, filed a Return under Section 6(1) of the Act, before the competent authority. The filing of the returns resulted in a order under Section 8(4) of the said Act, on 18-12-1981, by which an area admeasuring 667.2 sq. mtrs., was declared as surplus. 4. Thereafter, a notification under Section 10(1) of the Act, was issued on 01-04-2000, which was followed by a Notification under Section 10(3) of the Act, dated 02-06-2005. A notice under Section 10(5) of the Act, was issued on 22-02-2006, calling upon the petitioner to hand over the possession of the excess land. The petitioner thereafter, preferred an appeal under Section 33 of the Act, before the Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai. 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 pursuant to a notice under Section 10(5) of the Act. On the contrary, 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 ex-parte on 23-03-2006. 5. In the instant case, the fact as to whether the possession of 3 WP 685 of 2009 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 accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. 6. 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. )