*1* wp.7376.08.921.sxw kps IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7376 OF 2008 Gopinath Daji Surve and others. ..Petitioners -Versus- The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents .......... Mr.S.M.Railkar, for the Petitioners. Mr.S.N.Bhosale, AGP, for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.Shashank C. Mangle, for the Respondent No.3. .......... CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 19th July, 2011. P.C.: 1 The Petitioners were granted certain piece of alluvial land. A person similarly placed as the Petitioner objected to the grant and pointed out that this amounts to disposal of land in terms of Section 32 of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. However, for disposal, the area of such land should be more than one acre. In the instant case the land admeasures 266.18 square meters which is less than one acre, therefore, there should not be any disposal in favour of the Petitioners in terms of Section 32. Observing thus, the grant in favour of the Petitioners has been cancelled by the Commissioner and the Collector’s order dated 03.09.2007 has been set aside by him. Aggrieved thereby, the instant Writ Petition has been filed. 2 After having heard both sides, I am of the view that the grant of alluvial land vesting in the Government in terms of Section 32 may not be permissible exercise in this case as the area of the land is less than one acre. However, at the same time, there is provision in terms of Section 33, *2* wp.7376.08.921.sxw where the occupant, if any, of bank or shore shall be entitled to the temporary use of the alluvial land of which the area does not exceed one acre. The Commissioner should have, therefore, undertaken exercise of finding out as to whether, the action of the Collector can be supported in terms of Section 33 and instead of outright disposal and permanent grant, the temporary use could be sanctioned in favour of the Petitioners. The Commissioner does not examine this aspect of the matter and therefore, Mr.Railkar, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, is right in contending that the Commissioner should have referred to Section 33 which appears in the Code after Section 32. One enables the disposal of land which is alluvial whereas other permits the sanction of temporary user of such land if it admeasures less than one acre. Therefore, the Commissioner should have undertaken this exercise. 3 In my view, this Writ Petition can be disposed of with a direction to the Collector to examine as to whether, the Petitioners can be permitted to temporarily use the alluvial land which is presently in their use and occupation and whether, the occupant claiming to be similar land holder will also be entitled to make an application and raise the claim in that behalf. The Collector should consider both requests, namely, of the Petitioners so also that of the contesting Respondent No.3 and pass appropriate orders after hearing both of them within a period of three months from today. However, for a period of three months from today, the Petitioners shall be permitted to temporarily use the land which is subject matter of the grant in their favour. However, they shall not claim any equities, but ultimately abide by the orders of the Collector subject to their legal rights. The protection that has been granted by the order passed today, so also, by the ad-interim order of this Court in this Writ Petition, will continue for a period of two weeks from the date of communication *3* wp.7376.08.921.sxw of the order of the Collector in terms of the direction issued above, so as to enable the Petitioners to challenge the said order, if it is adverse to them. All contentions of both sides with regard to the claim are kept open. The Collector must take decision without being influenced by the observations made in the Commissioner’s order. 4 The Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)