-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2131 OF 2009 Smt. Meena C. Badlani & Ors. ..Petitioners. Versus The Principal Secretary, (Relief & Rehabilitation), Revenue & Forest Department & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. Manish Desai i/b Y. R. Shah for the petitioners. Respondent no.7 is personally present. Mr. S. N. Bhosale, AGP for respondent – State. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : July 9, 2010. P. C. : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent no.7 who is appearing in person and Mr. Bhosale, learned AGP for the State. 2. In the year 1960, the disputed property was allotted to one Tejbhandas Dandumal and it is the case of respondent no.7 that in the year 1961 Sanad was issued in favour of said Tejbhandas Dandumal. The case of the petitioner is that they are in possesion of the disputed property since prior to the issuance of allotment letter or alleged Sanad in favour of Tejbhandas Dandumal. In the year 1973, the Government of Maharashtra issued a G.R. laying down policy for regularisation of the unauthorised possession of the occupants in respect of the Government srp -: 2 :- lands. In pursuant of this policy, the petitioner preferred an application before the Principal Secretary (Relief & Rehabilitation), Revenue and Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. Said application was dismissed and therefore the present writ petition. 3. It is not disputed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties that the respondents have filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the present petitioners in respect of the disputed property. In the said suit, interim temporary injunction was claimed but same was not granted in favour of the respondents and this order was confirmed by the appellate Court and thereafter by the High Court. Thus, the petitioners claim to be in possession of the disputed property. The question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioners are entitled for regularisation of their possession in pursuance of the policy of the State Government laid down in the year 1973. Under the said policy, the persons in occupation of the government lands, are entitled to apply for regularisation. So far as the disputed property is concerned, it is the claim of the respondents that allotment order was made in the year 1960 and Sand was issued in the year 1961 in favour of Tejbhandas Dandumal, the predecessor-in-tittle of the respondents. Taking into consideration these facts, the finding is recorded by the Principal Secretary (Relief & Rehabilitation) that the Government policy of the -: 3 :- year 1973 cannot be made applicable to the case of the petitioners and therefore the petitioners are not entitled for regularisation. I do not see any reason to interfere with this finding. In any case the respondents have filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction against the petitioners in the Court of competent jurisdiction, which is sub-judice. Considering these facts, I do not find any merit in the petition. In the result, writ petition is dismissed. 4. It is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are made for the limited purpose of disposal of present petition and Civil Court deciding the respondents’ suit shall decide the same independently on its own merits. (R.V. MORE, J.)