CAW.297-11 - 1 - VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPLICATION No. 297 OF 2011 IN CIVIL WRIT PETITION No. 5344 OF 1991 Mr. Sajjansingh Gopalsingh Chittodia ...Applicant Vs. Shri Hanuman Sahakari Grihanirman Sanstha Maryadit & Ors. ...Respondents *** Mr. V. V. Pai, for the Petitioner. Mr. M. V. Bandiwadekar, for Respondent No.1. Mr. R. M. Patne, AGP for Respondent Nos. 2 to 3. *** CORAM: V. M. KANADE J. DATE : FEBRUARY 17, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant. It is submitted that the applicant is original respondent No.4. The grievance of the applicant is that this Court by an order dated 7th January, 2011 was pleased to allow the Writ Petition No. 5344 of 1991. It is submitted that the applicant was not present at the time of hearing of the said petition CAW.297-11 - 2 - and therefore, the applicant was unrepresented and the factual aspect as far as the issue involved in the writ petition is concerned, was not brought to the notice of this Court. It is submitted that respondent No. 4 represents 53 families who are residing on the said plot. It is submitted that if the impugned order has not been set aside, great hardship would be caused to the applicant-community. It is, therefore, submitted that writ petition be restored to the file and the matter be heard again on merits. 2. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1/original petitioner submitted that respondent No.4 was allotted an alternate land by the Government by an order dated 24th April, 1995. One of the condition for the allotment of the said land was that they should remove their hutments from the plot of the petitioner. Accordingly, alternate land was allotted to respondent No.4 and possession was also taken by the applicant herein and an entry was also made in the record of rights. It is submitted that pursuant to the allotment of the said land, the applicants herein have constructed their houses and the community members have also constructed their houses. 3. Taking into consideration the said fact, it will not be possible to entertain the Civil Application filed by the applicant/original respondent No.4. Apart from that, it is to be noted that by the said order, CAW.297-11 - 3 - the order impugned in the petition was set aside, on one of the grounds was that no hearing was given to the petitioner. In my view, therefore, it will not be possible to restore the writ petition. Petition was pending in this Court for almost 20 years. The applicants herein have not filed the affidavit-in-reply during pendency of the petition. Therefore, it will not be possible to entertain the Civil Application. Needless to state that respondents would be at liberty to take out appropriate proceedings which are available to them in law since the impugned order is set aside only on the ground that no hearing was given to the petitioners. Hence, Civil Application is dismissed. [ V. M. KANADE J.]