IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 5723 OF 2000 WRIT PETITION NO. 5723 OF 2000 WRIT PETITION NO. 5723 OF 2000 Shri Shankar Sridhar Kunte. ... Petitioner. V/s. Shri Dilip Gopal Kunte & ors. ... Respondents. N.J.Patil for the petitioner. Devidas H. Keluskar with N.V.Walawalkar for respondent No.16. S.D.Rayrikar, AGP for respondent Nos.17 & 18. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. CORAM: V.C.DAGA, J. DATED: 24th September 2008. DATED: 24th September 2008. DATED: 24th September 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. . Perused record. 2. This petition is directed against the order dated 21st October, 1998. The present petition is filed sometime in the year 1999. The challenge in this petition is to the order refusing to consider the review application made by the petitioner to the Consolidation Officer; wherein contention was raised that he lost area admeasuring about 160 sq.ft. in view of the implementation of the consolidation scheme and that should be returned to him. 3. If one turns to the provision of section 16 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 ("Act" for short) the said section reads as under: "16. Scheme to provide for compensation: 16. Scheme to provide for compensation: 16. Scheme to provide for compensation: (1) The scheme prepared by the Consolidation Officer shall provide for the payment of compensation to any owner who is allotted a holding of less market value than that of his original holding and for the recovery of compensation from any owner who is allotted a holding of a greater market value than that of his original holding. (2) The amount of compensation shall be determined so far as practicable, in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894." 4. The perusal of the aforesaid section would show that the scheme prepared by the Consolidation Officer is required to provide for the payment of compensation to the owner of the land who is allotted a holding of less market value than that of his original holding of a greater market value. In that view of the matter, it was open for the petitioner to claim compensation for the loss of land, which could have been determined under section 23(1) of the Land Acquisition Act. 5. It is not clear as to whether the petitioner has set up his claim for compensation. So far as contention raised by the petitioner is concerned, the same cannot be accepted at this stage as it will affect the consolidation scheme prepared under section 15A of the Act. The view taken by the authority below is a reasonable and possible view. The same cannot be interfered with in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed in limine. 6. It is, however, made clear that if the petitioner has set up a claim for compensation, this order shall not prejudice the claim of the petitioner, if the petitioner is found entitled to the compensation, subject to availability of legal remedy. 7. With the aforesaid observations, petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)