1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4476 of 2009 Shivaji Dattu Desai & ors. ... Petitioners versus Shripati Lahu Magdum & ors. ... Respondents ... Mr. N.J.Patil for the petitioner. Mr.R.M.Patne, AGP for respondent no.5. Mr.A.B.Avhad for respondent nos.1 to 3. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 25th June 2010 P.C. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appearing parties. 2. Learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3 as well as learned AGP points out that petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy under sub- section(2) of section 32 of The Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. Learned AGP further submits that not only that the petitioner has an alternate remedy but petitioner has availed of the alternative remedy and has made an application/ representation to the Dy.Director, Land Records on 11th June 2009. He 2 invites my attention to the affidavit filed by Mr.Sham Dattatraya Khamkar, Superintendent of Land Records, Kolhapur and in particular paragraph no.11 thereof wherein it is stated that petitioner has availed of the alternative remedy. In view of this, I am not inclined to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with the direction to respondent no.5 to decide the representation made by the petitioner as expeditiously as possible and in any event within six months from today. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)